Tweaking the throttle on approach

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:

But I don't think that has anything to do with your delusions
about being able to fly a real Baron.

Since it hasn't been tested, we don't know if it's a delusion or not.

I have. It is a nice game. I prefer the real thing though. They have
very little in common.

If so, you haven't configured your sim correctly.

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

chris writes:

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,

But in my case I'd know all the procedures a lot better, since that's what I
fly mostly in simulation. It would just be a matter of putting them into
practice. However, from what little I've heard of this, training entirely in
a Baron would be extremely expensive, even if I could find a place to do it.
Then again, if I can afford $2 million to buy the airplane, I can afford to
train in one.

What I found was that it felt substantially faster, it climbed a lot
quicker, and was harder to slow down.

I've noticed when trying the C172 in the sim that it seems to do everything in
slow motion. There's more than enough time to correct mistakes. Assuming the
sim is accurate (I have my doubts for the default C172), it's incredibly easy
to fly.

I can see how someone could get used to that in real life and then be
surprised by a "complex" or "high performance" aircraft. But in that case, is
the latter really _harder_ to fly, or is it really just a problem because the
student has become so accustomed to a really _easy_ plane to fly?

In other words, if the student just starts on a complex aircraft to start
with, perhaps he'd have less trouble dealing with it.

I also found the fuel management to be extra complexity I didn't need..

I still don't understand why fuel is an issue. Top off the tanks, leave the
fuel in its default configuration. If the fuel is in the yellow zone on
landing, make sure you top it off again before the next flight.

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.

It sounds different from the Baron. The Baron slows when flaps are extended,
albeit not dramatically. When the gear comes down, it slows a lot more,
although you can't slow with that until you're below 140 KIAS (and apparently
it automatically prevents this).

But I'm not sure what you mean by slowing "quickly," so maybe in a C172 it
slows instantly, I don't know.

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

Is the Archer a twin? I don't know anything about it.

You really want the aircraft to be going slow enough to stop flying on
it's own.

I want it to fly until the wheels are on the runway. I try to land by
descending at the lowest possible speed _while still flying_. To stop
descending, I just add power. If I _stall_ on landing, I'm not flying, and
I'm not touching the runway, which makes me nervous. I suppose I could stall
eight inches above the runway, but that's tough to manage and I don't see the
advantage over just flying to touchdown.

Remember if you want to leave the runway again you'll have
to put power on anyway.

If you stall just above the runway, that may not be enough. It might just
drive you that much harder down into the runway.

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...

The Baron does pitch down immediately when it stalls, if that's what you mean.
That's why I wouldn't want it to stall just above the runway. If an aircraft
stalls but keeps the same attitude, I suppose that might be different. But
even then, a stall means a rapid increase in rate of descent, which might not
be good so close to the ground (especially since it cannot be instantly
corrected, depending on one's definition of "instantly").

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

In the sim it's a learning experience. In real life it's a crying experience.

Indeed, if I were a real pilot and I had just spent $2 million on a Baron, I
think I might be afraid to even fly it.

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

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.

chris writes:

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??

From what some here have said, it sounds like a newly solo student might be
more familiar with engine-out procedures than the experienced pilot, since the
latter may not have reviewed the procedures since he got his license or
rating.

This is one of those scenarios that one cannot practically learn in real life,
anyway, because it's too dangerous. A full-motion sim is extremely useful for
this sort of thing. But most pilots don't have that, so there are probably
many who couldn't deal with an engine failure, irrespective of their other
experience.

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

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.

Tony,

Mx is the epiphany of ignorant.


Yeah, sure. And you just provided another lengthy zero-content
contribution to another MX thread. Does that help?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

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..

Thomas Borchert writes:

Yeah, sure. And you just provided another lengthy zero-content
contribution to another MX thread. Does that help?

I'm looking at your post carefully, but I'm not seeing any content relevant to
the thread topic in yours, either.

The discussion currently revolves around approaches. Would you like to talk
about that?

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

On Mar 8, 8:52 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
chris writes:
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,

But in my case I'd know all the procedures a lot better, since that's what I
fly mostly in simulation. It would just be a matter of putting them into
practice. However, from what little I've heard of this, training entirely in
a Baron would be extremely expensive, even if I could find a place to do it.
Then again, if I can afford $2 million to buy the airplane, I can afford to
train in one.

From what I have heard, you'd be doing a lot of assymetric flying,
when the evil instructor pulls the mixture on you repeatedly :-)

Just step down a bit from a Baron to a Duchess or a Twin Comanche and
if you were well off you could certainly afford to fly it. I believe
our Twin Comanche goes for about $350 an hour (about US$250/hr), as
opposed to a 172 at $180/hr (US$120)


What I found was that it felt substantially faster, it climbed a lot
quicker, and was harder to slow down.

I've noticed when trying the C172 in the sim that it seems to do everything in
slow motion. There's more than enough time to correct mistakes. Assuming the
sim is accurate (I have my doubts for the default C172), it's incredibly easy
to fly.


I don't understand what it is about sims, but I fly a lot on X-Plane
and it seems to just take forever to get anywhere.. I know the sim is
accurate, but it just seems when you fly the real thing it just feels
quicker!! I try to bear that in mind when I find 200kt slow in the sim
whereas I find 140kt in a real a/c exhilirating.

I can see how someone could get used to that in real life and then be
surprised by a "complex" or "high performance" aircraft. But in that case, is
the latter really _harder_ to fly, or is it really just a problem because the
student has become so accustomed to a really _easy_ plane to fly?

In other words, if the student just starts on a complex aircraft to start
with, perhaps he'd have less trouble dealing with it.


I wondered the same thing myself. I am thinking that it will take
longer to train on, because you are learning a lot more stuff than a
172 driver, but if you take the time to get your license then learn
the complex aircraft, maybe it would work out the same??


I also found the fuel management to be extra complexity I didn't need..

I still don't understand why fuel is an issue. Top off the tanks, leave the
fuel in its default configuration. If the fuel is in the yellow zone on
landing, make sure you top it off again before the next flight.


Ahh, I can help with this one ( I am more certain about things I have
direct experience with )

On a high wing aircraft, the fuel system is gravity fed, and you have
a fuel selector with L / R / Both choices. Leave it on Both and
you're set.
Low wing aircraft (Cherokee specifically) do not have a Both option.
You have Left or Right, and it's up to the pilot to manage his fuel.
For instance, you start on least full tank, switch to fullest before
takeoff. Every 30 minutes, for instance, you need to switch tanks, or
risk a weight imbalance, or at worst, engine failure due to fuel
starvation.

To make it worse, other aircraft, like the Cherokee Six, have four or
more tanks. Take off on the wrong tank on then and you're dead.

And just another note - IRL you don't always just top the tanks up
before flying - weight is frequently an issue and it's not often I get
to fly with pax and full fuel

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.

It sounds different from the Baron. The Baron slows when flaps are extended,
albeit not dramatically. When the gear comes down, it slows a lot more,
although you can't slow with that until you're below 140 KIAS (and apparently
it automatically prevents this).

But I'm not sure what you mean by slowing "quickly," so maybe in a C172 it
slows instantly, I don't know.


Feels pretty damn quick when you have throttle closed and the 172
happens to have 40 degrees of flap! It then requires damn near full
power to remain on glideslope, but that's another story!

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

Is the Archer a twin? I don't know anything about it.

Nope.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_Cherokee
Summary: Single engine, 180hp 4 cylinder, 4 seat, 125-130kt cruise,
40L / hour fuel burn, 660nm range.



You really want the aircraft to be going slow enough to stop flying on
it's own.

I want it to fly until the wheels are on the runway. I try to land by
descending at the lowest possible speed _while still flying_. To stop
descending, I just add power. If I _stall_ on landing, I'm not flying, and
I'm not touching the runway, which makes me nervous. I suppose I could stall
eight inches above the runway, but that's tough to manage and I don't see the
advantage over just flying to touchdown.


Disclaimer: I know sod all about twins. I am referring to light
singles, specifically 172s and the like
Right. So on landing in something like a 172, when you land, you
roundout, pull the throttle to idle, and flare by holding the aircraft
just off the runway until it stops flying and you have full back
stick. The slower you can get the better, makes it easier to stop,
less wear on brakes, allows use of shorter runways, etc.. With a
decent headwind you can be stopped in a couple hundred feet..
A full stall landing doesn't have to be unpleasant, either. Our
instructors always try and get students to hold full back stick on
landing..

Of course, something like an Archer likes to be landed a little
hotter, without having full back stick.

Remember if you want to leave the runway again you'll have
to put power on anyway.

If you stall just above the runway, that may not be enough. It might just
drive you that much harder down into the runway.

Once again, on a Cessna, unless you're miles above the runway then a
full stall landing is nothing to be worried about. That landing gear
takes a hell of a hard landing before you damage anything...


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...

The Baron does pitch down immediately when it stalls, if that's what you mean.
That's why I wouldn't want it to stall just above the runway. If an aircraft
stalls but keeps the same attitude, I suppose that might be different. But
even then, a stall means a rapid increase in rate of descent, which might not
be good so close to the ground (especially since it cannot be instantly
corrected, depending on one's definition of "instantly").

I heard that you run out of elevator authority if you get too slow but
that's only a guess...


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

In the sim it's a learning experience. In real life it's a crying experience.

Indeed, if I were a real pilot and I had just spent $2 million on a Baron, I
think I might be afraid to even fly it.

hehe.. Same here!