Tweaking the throttle on approach

On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 06:15:25 +0100, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Jim writes:

Excellent advice on all points. Only thing I would add is to use these
steps in basic trainer such as C172 until proficient, as in real life
you must crawl before you can walk. Flying a complex aircraft in
simulation is task intensive and frustrating.

Does a Baron 58 count as complex? It seems easy to fly compared to the big
iron.

Any plane with retractable gear and prop control is considered
complex.
I fly mostly the Baron 58 as Dreamfleet's simulation is rigorously accurate,
so it behaves just like the real thing. The C172 seems too easy, so either
this is the world's easiest plane to fly in real life, or the sim is not as
accurate as it could be.

The reason a C172 is used as a trainer in real life is because it is a
very easy and forgiving airplane to fly. It is a good plane for
landings because of the high wing. And because you don't have to worry
with the gear or prop control you can concentrate on the fundamentals
of a stabilized approach and then when mastered move on to more
complex aircraft. Maybe a single engine retractable. I don't remember
if the Baron 58 in a multi or single engine.
In real life, I'd want to fly the same thing I had flown in the sim, if I
could find a place that would give me instruction in a Baron (a new one, not
one of those WWII relics, but without the G1000 junk).

Be careful not to float or balloon
in ground effect. If you do balloon add a bit of power to stabilize
and cut the throttle again and flare to landing. Hope this helps.

I do seem to glide excessively just before touchdown. I have a phobia about
expensive damage to the gear. I've hardly ever crashed in a way that would
injure me in real life, but I've had a fair number of landings in which the
gear was damaged (on one occasion I damaged flaps as well, not sure how).
The gear on the 172 is very resilient. I really think if you use the
172 to master the pitch / power part of the stabilized approach you
will do better in the Baron. I have flown a real 172 and find FS2004's
172 to be very realistic. Hope this helps.
--

Jim in Houston
osPAm
Nurse's creed: Fill what's empty, empty what's full,
and scratch where it itches!! RN does NOT mean Real Nerd!

Jim writes:

Any plane with retractable gear and prop control is considered
complex.

Does adding an FMS change anything?

The reason a C172 is used as a trainer in real life is because it is a
very easy and forgiving airplane to fly. It is a good plane for
landings because of the high wing. And because you don't have to worry
with the gear or prop control you can concentrate on the fundamentals
of a stabilized approach and then when mastered move on to more
complex aircraft. Maybe a single engine retractable. I don't remember
if the Baron 58 in a multi or single engine.

It has two engines.

It still surprises me that moving a lever to extend or retract gear makes an
aircraft complex. An autopilot or GPS is a lot more complex than a gear
lever.

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

Mxsmanic wrote:
Jim writes:


Any plane with retractable gear and prop control is considered
complex.


Does adding an FMS change anything?


The reason a C172 is used as a trainer in real life is because it is a
very easy and forgiving airplane to fly. It is a good plane for
landings because of the high wing. And because you don't have to worry
with the gear or prop control you can concentrate on the fundamentals
of a stabilized approach and then when mastered move on to more
complex aircraft. Maybe a single engine retractable. I don't remember
if the Baron 58 in a multi or single engine.


It has two engines.

It still surprises me that moving a lever to extend or retract gear makes an
aircraft complex.

That's not the definition of complex. Needs a CS prop as well as flaps.

An autopilot or GPS is a lot more complex than a gear
lever.


You would think that - because you equate flying with looking at
avionics. Apparently you can't "fly" without one. They are not needed
for real flying. They can be ignored. The prop, cowl flaps, flaps,
landing all are vital to proper flying in a complex plane.

Tim writes:

You would think that - because you equate flying with looking at
avionics.

No, I think that because autopilots can have many different modes and
behaviors. Flaps and gear are more limited in their effects.

Apparently you can't "fly" without one.

I can, but for non-trivial flights I usually use the autopilot for much of the
flight. Also, on instrument approaches when there are many things to do,
using the AP lightens the workload a bit.

They are not needed for real flying. They can be ignored.

I'm not afraid to use an autopilot. Just because something isn't needed
doesn't mean that I feel compelled to prove that I can do without it. I use
all the available tools in the cockpit.

The prop, cowl flaps, flaps, landing all are vital to proper
flying in a complex plane.

They're an important _start_ to flying, yes. But later on it starts to
actually get complicated.

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

On Mar 7, 4:11 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
Jim writes:
Any plane with retractable gear and prop control is considered
complex.
[lots snipped]

It still surprises me that moving a lever to extend or retract gear makes an
aircraft complex. An autopilot or GPS is a lot more complex than a gear
lever.

It's not just the gear. Complex = flaps + gear + controllable prop,
where of course it's the combination of gear + prop that's the truly
"complex" part. "Complex" is just a word, anyway, as someone else
pointed out. They could've called it anything, but the point is that
a pilot must get training before being allowed to fly such aircraft.

Which makes sense... I mean heck, sometimes I think that automobile
drivers should be certified for manual transmissions. I see way too
many drivers who are very scary to be behind, when starting on hills
with their new 5-speed ;-)

Kev

Kev writes:

Which makes sense... I mean heck, sometimes I think that automobile
drivers should be certified for manual transmissions.

Some jurisdictions require this, but there seems to be little or no
enforcement. In my home State, as I recall, most people took the exam in an
automatic, and there was a box in which one could restrict them to automatics
only on the license, but this box was never used, leaving them able to drive
manual transmissions as well, even with zero experience.

But learning to drive with a manual transmission only takes a day. I suspect
that learning to move a gear lever or a flaps lever is comparable.


I see way too many drivers who are very scary to be behind, when starting on hills
with their new 5-speed ;-)

Yes, but much depends on how often you are in that situation.

I'm sure there are many exceptional situations in which the average pilot
would be hopelessly and dangerously at a loss, but if those situations don't
often arise, it probably won't ever be a problem.

It goes without saying that most pilots, like most drivers, will handle the
most common situations well, and will handle the exceptional situations
poorly. Having a license doesn't change this.

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

But learning to drive with a manual transmission only takes a day. I suspect
that learning to move a gear lever or a flaps lever is comparable.

Do you drive MX???????? - or is this another fantasy

If so you should be aware that there is more to learning to drive than
just moving a stick and rotating that round thing in front of you.
There are rules to be learnt (well outside France), you have to learn
how to handle the car, your perception to the outside world in
relation to your speed, position etc on the road. When to speed up,
slow down. How to handle emergencies. Same goes for an aircraft.

Ibby

Ibby (The Artist Formerly Known as Chris) writes:

Do you drive MX????????

Yes.

If so you should be aware that there is more to learning to drive than
just moving a stick and rotating that round thing in front of you.

Nevertheless, I learned to drive a stick in a few hours.

There are rules to be learnt (well outside France), you have to learn
how to handle the car, your perception to the outside world in
relation to your speed, position etc on the road. When to speed up,
slow down. How to handle emergencies. Same goes for an aircraft.

Learning to drive was easy. If learning to fly is that easy, I'm reassured.

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

Nevertheless, I learned to drive a stick in a few hours.
--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Gosh MX you ARE amazing. I have seen many drivers from Europe. Been
in a car with one driving and the quality of driving was absolutely
diabolical. He was looking out all the side windows etc, went past a
soccer pitch and he said 'i know that man' as he turned 180 degrees to
look out the rear window. Went round another bend and nearly took out
a lamp standard.

Perhaps he learnt to drive in a couple of hours too ;-((

Ibby

Hi,

In article .com,
wrote:
Which makes sense... I mean heck, sometimes I think that automobile
drivers should be certified for manual transmissions. I see way too
many drivers who are very scary to be behind, when starting on hills
with their new 5-speed ;-)

In the UK, they are. You can either take your driving test in a manual or an
automatic. If you take it in a manual, you can drive either. If you take it
in an automatic, you can only drive automatics.

Andy