If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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! |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Tweaking the throttle on approach
Ron Natalie writes:
And flaps...it has to have flaps. Don't small single-engine planes have flaps? The number of engines doesn't matter. By the way a twin with two HP wouldn't be HP either. High-performance, complex ... when did the FAA set these standards? It must have been when the Wright brothers were around if they are this low. To me, an F-16 is high performance, not a Baron. And a Space Shuttle is complex (or, arguably, a large jet airliner). -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Tweaking the throttle on approach
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Tweaking the throttle on approach
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Tweaking the throttle on approach
Roger writes:
Learn this first with the 172, then work with the bigger stuff. I don't know if I can trust the sim's default version of the 172. The add-ons I use have a reputation for extreme accuracy, so I can be reasonably confident that they do just what the real aircraft does, but I don't know about the 172. If I can find a reputable add-on C172, maybe I'll get that sometime. That's the main reason I don't fly the 172 much. I do have an A36 Bonanza, also by Dreamfleet, but the EHSI isn't Reality XP (Reality XP is known for its 100% accurate instruments), and the EHSI on the Baron is. I guess the EHSI wouldn't matter so much for pattern work, though. Also I figure it's better to get good in a small number of aircraft than mediocre in a large number, since in real life I probably wouldn't be flying 20 different aircraft, but just two or three at most. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Tweaking the throttle on approach
Roger wrote:
On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 16:26:52 -0500, Ron Natalie wrote: chris wrote: It has retractable gear and variable pitch props, means it's complex. And flaps...it has to have flaps. Not to mention multi-engine. The number of engines doesn't matter. By the way a twin with two HP wouldn't be HP either. or 200 for that matter. Isn't is still "greater than 200"? Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com That is high performance - not complex. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Tweaking the throttle on approach
Mxsmanic wrote:
Ron Natalie writes: And flaps...it has to have flaps. Don't small single-engine planes have flaps? The number of engines doesn't matter. By the way a twin with two HP wouldn't be HP either. High-performance, complex ... when did the FAA set these standards? It must have been when the Wright brothers were around if they are this low. To me, an F-16 is high performance, not a Baron. And a Space Shuttle is complex (or, arguably, a large jet airliner). That's because you have no idea what happens in the real world. Compared with ms flight sim on a computer an ultralight is high performance and complex... |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Tweaking the throttle on approach
The kindly and greatly respected Uncle Al over on the sci.physics
newsgroup offered an observation as to the intrinsic worth of a poster's contributions that I've taken the liberty paraphrase here, regarding MX's observations re complex aircraft. Not only does he know more than we do, he also knows more than the FAA! Mx is an epiphany of chronic abusive trolling ignorant persona. Mx is a snail-skulled little rabbit. Would that a hawk pick up Mx, drive its beak into Mx's Lilliputian brain, and upon finding it rancid set Mx loose to flutter briefly before spattering the ocean rocks with the frothy pale pink shame of its Ignoble blood. May Mx choke on the queasy, convulsing nausea of his own trite, foolish beliefs. I cannot believe how incredibly ignorant Mx is. I mean rock-hard ignorant. Blazing hot mid-day sun on Mercury ignorant. Surface of Venus under 80 atmospheres of red hot carbon dioxide and sulfuric acid vapor dehydrated for 300 million years rock-hard ignorant. Ignorant so ignorant that it goes way beyond the ignorant we know into a whole different sensorium of ignorant. Mx is trans-ignorant ignorant. Meta-ignorant. Ignorant so collapsed upon itself that it is within its own Schwarzschild radius. Black hole ignorant. Ignorant gotten so dense and massive that no intellect can escape. Singularity ignorant. Mx emits more aviation ignorant/second than our entire galaxy otherwise emits ignorant/year. Quasar ignorant. Nothing else in the universe can be this ignorant. Mx is an oozingly putrescent primordial fragment from the original Big Bang of Ignorant, a pure essence of ignorant so uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond the laws of physics that define maximally extrapolated hypergeometric n-dimensional backgroundless ignorant as we can imagine it. Mx is Planck ignorant, a quantum foam of ignorant, a vacuum decay of ignorant, a grand unified theory of ignorant. Mx is the epiphany of ignorant. On Mar 7, 12:05 am, Mxsmanic wrote: Ron Natalie writes: And flaps...it has to have flaps. Don't small single-engine planes have flaps? The number of engines doesn't matter. By the way a twin with two HP wouldn't be HP either. High-performance, complex ... when did the FAA set these standards? It must have been when the Wright brothers were around if they are this low. To me, an F-16 is high performance, not a Baron. And a Space Shuttle is complex (or, arguably, a large jet airliner). -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Tweaking the throttle on approach
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
ID Please - Throttle Quad | Orval Fairbairn | Restoration | 0 | December 17th 05 08:35 PM |
Throttle movement | Max Richter | Naval Aviation | 12 | December 11th 04 11:09 PM |
Engine throttle | Bob Ingraham | Simulators | 13 | December 11th 04 07:17 PM |
Which throttle governer? | Garfiel | Rotorcraft | 1 | December 13th 03 04:30 PM |
Completing the Non-precision approach as a Visual Approach | John Clonts | Instrument Flight Rules | 45 | November 20th 03 05:20 AM |