Tweaking the throttle on approach

chris writes:

It has retractable gear and variable pitch props, means it's complex.
Not to mention multi-engine.

The FAA seems to have a low threshold of complexity.

You would be very ill-advised to try and start your flight training in
a twin. There's way too much stuff to cope with when you're trying to learn
how to take off, fly s+l and land..

I've heard of other people doing it, although it seems to be rare. If that's
the aircraft I wanted to fly, wouldn't it be more practical to just start with
it to begin with?

Best to learn on something small, slow, forgiving, and you can move up
later. I found even going from a C152 to an Archer, I got way behind
the aircraft - too much happening too fast, and the Archer doesn't
have two engines, CSU's or retract. And the difference in cruise is
only 35kt or so, but enough to get me seriously behind the aircraft!!

What sorts of things were you losing track of in the Archer?

If you are floating you are going too fast or trying to hold it off
too long. From reading your earlier post, you identified the VSo of
the Baron as 75.

That's the lower limit of the white band, which (IIRC) is the VSo with flaps
extended. I usually stay above Vmc (the first red line) on landing, and I
usually won't rotate until I'm above Vyse (the first blue line) at take-off.
The engine-out scenarios I've practiced are harrowing and I always like to be
going fast enough to deal with those. (I haven't practiced engine failure on
landing yet, however.)

My research came up with 69-72 as stall speeds.
Which makes VSo x1.3 = 89-93kt.

That's very often my speed at touchdown. I never try to stall into touchdown,
despite what I've read here. My theory is that being at stall speed gives you
no options, even if it's the slowest possible touchdown speed. In an
emergency, I want to be able to leave the runway again, but I'm not going
anywhere once I stall.

You probably don't want to be going for a full stall landing in a twin,
so come in at about 90kt, raise the nose a bit to flare and let it settle
onto the runway.

That's what I do, more less. I descend until about ten feet or so then hold
the aircraft level and set throttles to idle (they are slightly above prior to
that). That causes the aircraft to settle downwards and as it does so I
flare. If my approach was stable and if it's not too windy I can barely feel
the wheels touch. If I've been crabbing for a crosswind this is also when I
straighten the aircraft out.

Why do you say a stall landing is inadvisable "in a twin"? Would it be
different for a single-engine plane?

Don't try and hold it off, that's what a Cessna pilot should do, but
probably not a twin pilot.

Here again, why the distinction between single and twin?

Just make sure your mains touch before your nose wheel.

That's usually not a problem, although in landings that have collapsed gear,
sometimes the nose gear goes first. It seems that a hard landing in the Baron
tends to pitch the nose downward so that the nose gear hits even harder than
the main gear, and then it breaks. (Incidentally, MSFS doesn't count that as
a crash, but the aircraft is still unflyable afterwards.)

Mind you, I am not a twin pilot so that could all have been
rubbish.

I don't understand why 1 vs 2 engines is such a big deal.

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

In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:

chris writes:

It has retractable gear and variable pitch props, means it's complex.
Not to mention multi-engine.

The FAA seems to have a low threshold of complexity.

Just consider it a term of art.

Pixel Dent writes:

Just consider it a term of art.

I've concluded that it's just another one of those arbitrary anachronisms that
seem to haunt the FAA.

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

On Mar 7, 6:03 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
chris writes:
It has retractable gear and variable pitch props, means it's complex.
Not to mention multi-engine.

The FAA seems to have a low threshold of complexity.

The term complex has little meaning where I live - if I transition to
say a Twin Comanche, I will need separate training on and ratings for
retractable gear, CSU and multi. Each has it's own ins and outs, as
I think I will find out shortly when I go for an Arrow rating - that
has retract and CSU.


You would be very ill-advised to try and start your flight training in
a twin. There's way too much stuff to cope with when you're trying to learn
how to take off, fly s+l and land..

I've heard of other people doing it, although it seems to be rare. If that's
the aircraft I wanted to fly, wouldn't it be more practical to just start with
it to begin with?


I have heard of one person who did it, but I think for the majority of
people it would be hard to cope with all the stuff you need to deal
with to fly a twin,

Best to learn on something small, slow, forgiving, and you can move up
later. I found even going from a C152 to an Archer, I got way behind
the aircraft - too much happening too fast, and the Archer doesn't
have two engines, CSU's or retract. And the difference in cruise is
only 35kt or so, but enough to get me seriously behind the aircraft!!

What sorts of things were you losing track of in the Archer?

What I found was that it felt substantially faster, it climbed a lot
quicker, and was harder to slow down. I also found the fuel
management to be extra complexity I didn't need..
For an average circuit in a 152, I would be waiting for it to get to
circuit altitude, had time to do my checks, and it slowed down quickly
with flap out. The archer, on the other hand, I found I had to turn
downwind, level out, pull the power back, and trim, all at the same
time, then pull the power right back or I would run over the guy in
front. Then when I put flap out it didn't slow down. Then you have
to somehow slow down and get down at the same time.

I have 150 hours of Archer time now, and am perfectly comfortable with
doing all of the above, but it was harrowing to begin with!!


If you are floating you are going too fast or trying to hold it off
too long. From reading your earlier post, you identified the VSo of
the Baron as 75.

That's the lower limit of the white band, which (IIRC) is the VSo with flaps
extended. I usually stay above Vmc (the first red line) on landing, and I
usually won't rotate until I'm above Vyse (the first blue line) at take-off.
The engine-out scenarios I've practiced are harrowing and I always like to be
going fast enough to deal with those. (I haven't practiced engine failure on
landing yet, however.)

I have no idea about that stuff, but if you're happy with it...


My research came up with 69-72 as stall speeds.
Which makes VSo x1.3 = 89-93kt.

That's very often my speed at touchdown. I never try to stall into touchdown,
despite what I've read here. My theory is that being at stall speed gives you
no options, even if it's the slowest possible touchdown speed. In an
emergency, I want to be able to leave the runway again, but I'm not going
anywhere once I stall.


You really want the aircraft to be going slow enough to stop flying on
it's own. Remember if you want to leave the runway again you'll have
to put power on anyway.

You probably don't want to be going for a full stall landing in a twin,
so come in at about 90kt, raise the nose a bit to flare and let it settle
onto the runway.

That's what I do, more less. I descend until about ten feet or so then hold
the aircraft level and set throttles to idle (they are slightly above prior to
that). That causes the aircraft to settle downwards and as it does so I
flare. If my approach was stable and if it's not too windy I can barely feel
the wheels touch. If I've been crabbing for a crosswind this is also when I
straighten the aircraft out.

Sounds good to me..


Why do you say a stall landing is inadvisable "in a twin"? Would it be
different for a single-engine plane?

If I got this right (twin drivers please confirm or deny this), there
is a lot of weight up front with those engines hanging so far forward,
which makes holding the nose off a real bugger, and especially on
things like Twin Comanche's they tend to stop flying with a bit of a
bang, so you are best advised to just fly it into the runway...


Don't try and hold it off, that's what a Cessna pilot should do, but
probably not a twin pilot.

Here again, why the distinction between single and twin?

I am a single engine pilot, please see above for my admittedly limited
understanding..


Just make sure your mains touch before your nose wheel.

That's usually not a problem, although in landings that have collapsed gear,
sometimes the nose gear goes first. It seems that a hard landing in the Baron
tends to pitch the nose downward so that the nose gear hits even harder than
the main gear, and then it breaks. (Incidentally, MSFS doesn't count that as
a crash, but the aircraft is still unflyable afterwards.)

You really don't want to break gear off in sim or real life :-)


Mind you, I am not a twin pilot so that could all have been
rubbish.

I don't understand why 1 vs 2 engines is such a big deal.

See above..

I have heard of one person who did it, but I think for the majority of
people it would be hard to cope with all the stuff you need to deal
with to fly a twin,



Oops.. I meant to say.. It would be hard to cope with all that stuff
while learning the basics of flying, like circuits, approaches,
landings...

Judging by what I experienced, the average student pilot would
probably find anything much more complicated than a 172 or Archer to
be just overwhelming. More things to remember = more things to
forget :-)

chris writes:

Judging by what I experienced, the average student pilot would
probably find anything much more complicated than a 172 or Archer to
be just overwhelming. More things to remember = more things to
forget :-)

But following that logic, people who learn to drive with a manual transmission
should have more trouble than those who learn to drive with an automatic, and
yet that does not seem to be the case. They both seem to learn at about the
same speed.

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

On Mar 8, 8:54 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
chris writes:
Judging by what I experienced, the average student pilot would
probably find anything much more complicated than a 172 or Archer to
be just overwhelming. More things to remember = more things to
forget :-)

But following that logic, people who learn to drive with a manual transmission
should have more trouble than those who learn to drive with an automatic, and
yet that does not seem to be the case. They both seem to learn at about the
same speed.


I sort of meant that I remember having issues with trying to remember
everything while doing a circuit - I couldn't have coped with also
having to manipulate landing gear and prop controls, not to mention
multiple engines..

chris schrieb:

I sort of meant that I remember having issues with trying to remember
everything while doing a circuit - I couldn't have coped with also
having to manipulate landing gear and prop controls, not to mention
multiple engines..

That's why an instructor is with you. If all you want is to fly twins,
then the only reason to not directly learn in a twin is financial. This
is a very strong reason, though.

Of course there can be other benefits in learning to fly in a basic
airplane, like learning to fly by the seat of your pants, learning to
cope with unimproved backcountry strips and the like, but it seems that
the vast majority of students don't learn that in a 172 either.

But following that logic, people who learn to drive with a manual transmission
should have more trouble than those who learn to drive with an automatic, and
yet that does not seem to be the case. They both seem to learn at about the
same speed.

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

In the UK if you learn to drive using a car with an automatic gear box
you ARE NOT PERMITTED to drive a manual geared car. You must take
lessons and an examination to do so.

Ibby

You would be very ill-advised to try and start your flight training in
a twin. There's way too much stuff to cope with when you're trying to learn
how to take off, fly s+l and land..

I've heard of other people doing it, although it seems to be rare. If that's
the aircraft I wanted to fly, wouldn't it be more practical to just start with
it to begin with?


I also forgot to mention that since vastly experienced pilots still
die from getting it wrong after an engine failure in a twin, how do
you think a newly solo student could deal with it??