Tweaking the throttle on approach

In alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim Mxsmanic wrote:

Why do you need insurance?

You don't. But if you don't have insurance you had better have very deep
pockets and/or a bevy of lawyers on hand (at least in the US).

Yes, you could go naked on the insurance, but if thats the case you
might have to buy your own airport.

How often does that actually happen?

At every airport I have based my Bonanza, I have been required to show
some proof of liability insurance in order to rent or own either a
hangar or a tie-down. I guessing you wouldn't need to to that if you
owned the airport.

Sometimes it's more cost-effective to do without. And if you have enough
socked away to pay for repairs or even to buy a new aircraft, why bother to
insure it? Unless you can get really good premiums, that is.

Its not the repair or replacement of the plane that is the issue. Its
the liability. Crash your plane into a playground full of children
and you will have lawyers suing you before you can even crawl out of
the wreckage. At least here in the US. I understand other country's
have different rules when it comes to liability.


I'm tired of insurance companies dictating to the rest of society.

You and me both.

--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Hood River, OR (soon to be Boise, ID)

If we are to believe the 'legend' around your persona, much of this is
moot. Fi you devoted your entire monthly income to flying you might
get two hours of dual in a light twin.

The 'reluctance' to experience real flight may be due to your
financial circumstances -- you can't afford it, and rather than simply
accept that reality it's much easier to rationalize that reality away.

On a minor point, getting a general aviation PP is the first step to
flying many different kinds of aircraft in the USAF. But what do they
know, they only have their real experience to go on. And, by the way,
the Baron is part of their fleet.




n
On Mar 8, 10:53 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
Tony writes:
Is it not true that the USAF sends its flying cadets at the Academy
off to general aviation flight schools for their PP license before
starting them in their own programs? These men and women are smart,
motivated, fit, grew up playing computer games all of their lives, and
are learning to fly in SEL aircraft.

And you, we are led to believe, are in your forties, not as fit,
probably allesser reflexes, think doing it that way is perhaps too
easy? "Oh, I'd start in a Baron."

The USAF trains fighter pilots; the Baron is not a fighter aircraft. They
also train for very exceptional conditions that civilians don't encounter.

The Baron isn't certified for aerobatics, either. I don't see why flying it
nice and easy would be any insurmountable challenge.

Ego, in pilots, is a killer. Way back when I paid attention to such
things the pilots who were MDs (circa 1970s) were over represented in
the crash statistics. In that era -- those would have been med school
graduates of the 50s and 60s, -- MDs seemed to be much more 'absolute'
in their decision making. I hate painting with such a broad brush, but
that was my impression at least.

My guess would be that MDs simply lacked experience. Doctors are usually
pretty busy, and although they might well be able to afford lessons and a
license and even their own aircraft, actually racking up lots of hours would
be very difficult. So when they do go out flying, they're often rusty.

The point I'm making is that ego driven pilots, and you seem to
present yourself as likely being in that group should you obtain a
license, tend to ruin perfectly good airplanes.

I have no ego, but I have no false modesty, either. I don't see learning to
fly as such a big deal. The biggest problem with flying is the draconian set
of regulations governing it, not the flying itself.

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

"Tim" wrote in message
...
I have played MS flight sim.

Operative word here is "played".

Another PLONK

Frank Stutzman writes:

You don't. But if you don't have insurance you had better have very deep
pockets and/or a bevy of lawyers on hand (at least in the US).

What kinds of things are people filing lawsuits for in general aviation?

At every airport I have based my Bonanza, I have been required to show
some proof of liability insurance in order to rent or own either a
hangar or a tie-down.

What are the risks? I mean, what kinds of lawsuits are taking place over
there? How dangerous can a hangar or tie-down be, especially to anyone other
than the owner/renter?

I guessing you wouldn't need to to that if you owned the airport.

I'm guessing that litigation in the U.S. long ago flew over a cliff and into a
bottomless pit. Doesn't anyone ever say "stop"?

Its not the repair or replacement of the plane that is the issue. Its
the liability. Crash your plane into a playground full of children
and you will have lawyers suing you before you can even crawl out of
the wreckage.

But how often does that really happen? How are the insurance companies
assessing risks and setting premiums? Usually if you crash at an airport, the
only one who suffers is you. I guess you could leave a dent in the concrete
or something.

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

Nomen Nescio wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

From: Mxsmanic

The USAF trains fighter pilots; the Baron is not a fighter aircraft.


First, they train PILOTS.
Then they train them to use an aircraft as a weapon.


I don't see learning to
fly as such a big deal.


Nothing is a "big deal" if you don't actually have to do it.
And, BTW, most of your posts claim that it is too much of
a "big deal" for you to handle. By your own admission,
you're afraid of flying, can't handle the physical sensations,
couldn't afford ONE lesson, are prone to panic attacks, and
are too fat to fit in most GA aircraft.
If you can't handle just ONE requirement of a task.......
You can't handle the task.

You left out "can't control your bowels and/or bladder
for the duration of a flight".

Maybe you should stick to telling women that they don't know
**** about breast feeding.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A

iQCVAwUBRfBjApMoscYxZNI5AQGLAQP/cX5uaxWWCa8KbSDIT+q5G4B6OqN54X5N
oHyJnz8tG8YfcmNwAReg4bm2dT1hm/6Qai44vKeA4TzJRGQQ1xj0FB03gZkRt295
WNUbKjIlqi4jiCMcgQrzOfSUbEt3eDlMPQFkSWL7TXC1zlyf4K 5nd95PA+1a+WYI
8dfn7nhIqTY=
=LSh4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Mxsmanic wrote:
Tim writes:


I have played MS flight sim. It is fun to do instrument approaches with
it - it is somewhat helpful in keeping me practiced at the procedures.


Which aircraft do you simulate, what type of flight controls do you have, and
which add-ons do you have installed?


I own a grumman AA5A. It has a normal dual yoke control. It came with
the plane. I have modified the plane with a LoPresti cowl/nosebowl, and
I just had new leather seats installed. It has a JPI EDM 700 fuel flow
meter. I also have a garmin 295 hand held gps mounted to the plane.

For real flight training I get instruction in a Frasca training device.
I can log that time as simulated instrument time and count it toward
ratings or currency. I can't do the same for my games.

As an aside, I recently built a cockpit simulator for my 3 year old
nephew out of a carboard box. It has a REAL compass (not like MS flight
sim - which is fake) and it had a real AOPA sticker in it. I even put
on a propeller. As far as the FAA is concerned I can log time in that
as much/as well as I can log MS flight sim game time.

We can go round and round. You are engaging yourself in a game. You
try to convince people it is as good or better than the real thing. You
are never going to be able to convince anyone of that. You are
delusional.

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

On Mar 9, 4:48 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
chris writes:
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)

Even $120 is a lot. What do Barons cost per hour, I wonder?

It might be one of those 'if you have to ask you can't afford it'
situations


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'm sure it's just the additional cues one gets in real life. They all serve
to remind you that you are moving (relatively) quickly.

For sure


A flight in the sim takes the same time as its real-life counterpart, though.

Yep, but it just seems to take forever! I also find it a damn pain to
hand-fly the sim, preferring to set the autopilot.. IRL I don't have
any issues hand-flying..

I just remembered something you might be surprised about.. Our
national airline purchased 16 or so Beech 1900D turboprop airliners a
year or two back. They ordered them WITHOUT autopilot! They have to
be hand flown the whole time. Rationale was apparently that it keeps
the pilots sharp by making them fly the whole time.. Hell, even the a/
c I fly has autopilot!!!!



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 think so. If you can learn all the complex and HP stuff _eventually_, then
that also means that you can learn it right up front. It might seem more
daunting at first than a simple aircraft, but the overall elapsed time to
become proficient in the complex aircraft would be the same in both
situations.


That's probably a fair call, but I have no direct experience either
way so I can't say

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.

Sounds good to me.

Mee too!!


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.

Wow ... sounds incredibly primitive. I guess crossfeeds and stuff like that
are still future science-fiction for small aircraft.

It is a right royal pain in the ass!!! Anyway, you don't need
crossfeed for a single


In a twin, though, you have one tank per engine, so you should be able to feed
the right engine with the right tank, and the left with the left tank.

Might depend on the twin - the fuel systems are as varied as the
aircraft. And on things like Twin Comanches and Aztecs I believe the
fuel selectors are between the pilots seats on the floor where you
can't see them at night!!!


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

Point taken. But I have read that it's good practice to keep plenty of fuel
in the tanks when possible, not only to maximum your reserves but also to help
exclude condensation (I guess small aircraft haven't discovered airtight seals
yet, either).

It sure is! If I have any chance to fill er up I will.. But I always
have to keep an eye on weight - I fly out of some short runways and
weight is always a concern, especially on Pipers which aren't happy to
fly until they're good and ready...


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!

Interesting. Full flaps on the Baron do create a lot of drag, but the
"approach" setting creates far less. It's a poor speedbrake--the gear works
better for that (but has a lower maximum speed). When I extend the flaps in
the Baron, I rise very noticeably, then I slow down significantly and I start
to lose altitude; with full flaps, there's a noticeable tendency to pitch
down, too. But I'm expecting all this so I adjust for it.


When you apply the flaps you need to push forward to counteract the
climb, if that's what it's trying to do. Some planes are worse than
others. If you bang flaps down on a 172 you better be ready to
push!!! And if you have lots of flap down and you try to do a go-
around you better have a strong set of arms on you, I understand
bigger Cessnas are even worse...

At the end of the day, even though there are big operational
differences between things like 172s and Archers with the flaps, once
you get used to what to expect it's fine.
I personally prefer Piper flaps, you don't get anywhere as big a
pitching moment when you dump the flaps as with 172s

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.

Is it a good aircraft? I've heard stories about Pipers.

Damn good aircraft son!! When in flight it feels very stable and
solid. And once you trim it up you can sit back and watch the scenery
go past!
When you come from a 152 to an Archer it feels like Christmas every
time you go flying !!!


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..

How far above the runway? And you don't stall or get a tail strike?

If you raise the nose too fast in the flare you climb, then stall and
fall on your ass. So the idea is to raise the nose just quickly
enough to keep 'er level, and it will run out of airspeed and land
before you're anywhere near the banging the tail. On both 172's and
Cherokees this is true, but on our aero club's new Alphas there is so
much stuff hanging out below the tail you have to land very flat or be
guaranteed of a tail strike.


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

In the Baron I don't think I've ever pulled the yoke all the way back. I stay
almost level until I'm very close indeed to the runway, then pull back on
power a bit and flare. No idle and no full back stick, though. I haven't
actually tried that, but from the way the Baron behaves my intuition tells me
it wouldn't be suitable.


Probably not, but you might want to chop the power to idle when you
flare, or it will probably float for miles!

chris wrote:
I just remembered something you might be surprised about.. Our
national airline purchased 16 or so Beech 1900D turboprop airliners a
year or two back. They ordered them WITHOUT autopilot! They have to
be hand flown the whole time. Rationale was apparently that it keeps
the pilots sharp by making them fly the whole time.. Hell, even the
a/ c I fly has autopilot!!!!

In the late 70's and early 80's when I worked for Scheduled Skyways (Not as
a pilot) the Metroliners they flew didn't have autopilots. I asked the chief
pilot who had just been involved in buying another 2 or 3 planes why they
didn't have autopilots in them. His answer, "We're already paying for two
pilots why should we pay for a third?"

On Mar 8, 1:52 am, Mxsmanic wrote:

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.


When you watch martial arts movie or play one of those "martial arts
games", quite a lot blocks, punches and kicks look quite slow and
easy, easily repeatable. Try to repeat it in dark alley against three
blokes carrying broken bottles, bicycle chains and arbitrary sticks
without real practice or even while safely sparring with instructor
or another student and it suddenly looks very different.