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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
On Topic
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
On Topic
Mxsmanic wrote:
writes: Financial limitations are always a factor in everything in real life. It's possible to spend a lot more on something that will eventually provide a payback than on something that won't. And it is quite possible you are insane. Do you think the Air Force is going to do primary training in anything other than cheap (by comparison) primary trainers? I don't know how the Air Force sets its priorities. I don't think money is always a key factor. "I don't know how" being the operative part. Do you think the Air Force is going to do primary training in anything other than cheap (by comparison) primary trainers? Nope, because such pilots wouldn't be allowed to fly out of the third world and real simulators that accurately simulate actual flight cost more than primary trainers. Real simulators for large airliners are cheaper than the airliners themselves. But not cheaper than much of anything less than an airliner, which is the point. Yeah, computers were invented making it possible to build a simulator. Simulators substantially predate computers. Not simulators that actually simulate reality. And, FYI, the FAA has been talking about increasing the flight time requirements for pilots flying paying customers, not decreasing them or using simulation. Experience is always an asset. Good to see that you are not totally insane. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
On Topic
"Mark" wrote in message ... On May 10, 3:06 pm, "birdog" wrote: Is it possible to get a pilot topic going here? For all the criticism of this guy Max--, the simulation pilot here, at least his posts relate to aviation, however synthetic. How about we try this, just maybe to get some on topic comments. Today, maybe tail-draggers have no legitimate redeeming value, except for bush piloting, since virtually everyone flies from tarmac to tarmac. But still, lack of the skill eliminates some planes from the pilots options. The Citabra, the 170's, 180's, or the smell of dope and gas in an old Champ. The principal difficulty is in a tricycle, once all three wheels are down solid, you are done except steering it down the runway. In a tail dragger, relax and it will swap ends, with devistating results. In my formative years, I flew safety valve for any number of licensed pilots trying to transition from try- to tail draggers. A few picked it up with a dozen or so landings, and a very few never got the hang. Most took about 3-6 hours to gain competence. To go from tail dragger to tri-gear normally took about two landings. Compare this to 7-9 hours of dual for the beginning pilot in eithor type. To me, the hardest thing to master before soloing was the rudder work required to land a tail dragger. Does this suggest that training should begin in a tail dragger? Would it be worth the extra effort? Or is the entire topic outdated? I saw one like this yesterday parked out back, except it was blue and white, real sharp. http://www.airliners.net/photo/Van's-RV-6/1577100/M/ --- Mark Beautiful little plane. Looks a lot like a 300. It is stressed for aerobatics? Almost looks like it's doing aeros, setting on the runway! |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
On Topic
Have no experience, but kind of curious too.
I was under the impression that things that come into play for conventional gear is gyroscopic motion on the propeller when the tail comes up or drops on take off and landing, as well as the fact that since the cg is behind the main gear there is a tenancy for the airplane to want to ground loop if you don't keep that cg behind them fairly well with control inputs. I would think that both floats and skis would not have that same issue, both due to not having as much pitch up and down on take off and landings, and due to their cg being over the floats or skis. But then again I have no idea what I am talking about. Just guessing and would like someone who actually knows what they are talking about to chime in heh. Mike On May 10, 3:56*pm, Jim Logajan wrote: "birdog" wrote: Today, maybe tail-draggers have no legitimate redeeming value, except for bush piloting, since virtually everyone flies from tarmac to tarmac. Perhaps one other possible redeeming value might be in emergency landings on unknown surfaces. I've read accident reports where there were fatalities when the nose wheel of a plane dug in and the plane flipped. I'm also curious to know if anyone can give first-hand information on whether landing on skis or floats is more like landing on conventional gear or tricycle gear? For several reasons I've assumed that it is more like landing on tricycle gear, but maybe that is incorrect. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
On Topic
"birdog" wrote in message
... Is it possible to get a pilot topic going here? For all the criticism of this guy Max--, the simulation pilot here, at least his posts relate to aviation, however synthetic. How about we try this, just maybe to get some on topic comments. Today, maybe tail-draggers have no legitimate redeeming value, except for bush piloting, since virtually everyone flies from tarmac to tarmac. But still, lack of the skill eliminates some planes from the pilots options. The Citabra, the 170's, 180's, or the smell of dope and gas in an old Champ. The principal difficulty is in a tricycle, once all three wheels are down solid, you are done except steering it down the runway. In a tail dragger, relax and it will swap ends, with devistating results. In my formative years, I flew safety valve for any number of licensed pilots trying to transition from try- to tail draggers. A few picked it up with a dozen or so landings, and a very few never got the hang. Most took about 3-6 hours to gain competence. To go from tail dragger to tri-gear normally took about two landings. Compare this to 7-9 hours of dual for the beginning pilot in eithor type. To me, the hardest thing to master before soloing was the rudder work required to land a tail dragger. Does this suggest that training should begin in a tail dragger? Would it be worth the extra effort? Or is the entire topic outdated? Yes, it is probably well worth the effort. With the quest for efficiency, in recent years, most of the newer tri-gear designs have featured free castering nose wheels. That has certainly reduced the aerodynamic drag of the nose wheel; but it has done so at the cost of controllability in the event of a partial brake failure and also created some brake wear and heating problems taxiing in crosswinds. Against that back drop, even though I expect to have a lot of trouble learning to love the high nose position, a steerable tail wheel has a very strong argument. I would expect the frequency of ground loops due to pilot error in taildraggers to be no greater than the frequency due to braking problems in tri-gears; and the improvement in propeller clearance, when strarting from rest on the occasional loose surfaces, should offest the annoyance s-turns due to reduced visibility. All in all, the comparison could be a wash; but is certainly worthy of more discussion than it has received. Peter |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
On Topic
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
On Topic
Mxsmanic wrote:
writes: Not simulators that actually simulate reality. Reality-targeted flight simulators predate electronic computers. The operative word being "targeted". The first flight simulators that were anything near realistic had analog computers running them, but the view was nowhere near realistic. It wasn't until digital computers that it became possible to have a realistic view. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
On Topic
wrote in message
... Not simulators that actually simulate reality. I've been in multi million dollar six degree of freedom simulators, but I've never been in one that comes close to simulating reality. They can only translate about a dozen feet from end to end - the resulting motion is just not right. Plus they can't come close to simulating the things that really mess up your inner ears during sustained turns. Ever heard of anyone suffering GLOC in a 6dof simultor? -- Geoff The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
On Topic
"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
... With the quest for efficiency, in recent years, most of the newer tri-gear designs have featured free castering nose wheels. That has certainly reduced the aerodynamic drag of the nose wheel; Moving it to the back and reducing the size by a factor of 4 would do even more... -- Geoff The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
On Topic
"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" The Sea Hawk @See My Sig.com wrote:
"Peter Dohm" wrote in message ... With the quest for efficiency, in recent years, most of the newer tri-gear designs have featured free castering nose wheels. That has certainly reduced the aerodynamic drag of the nose wheel; Moving it to the back and reducing the size by a factor of 4 would do even more... Vans RV-6, 7, 8, and 9 experimentals can be built with tricycle gear and conventional gear. Without cheating and looking at the advertised performance difference between the two gear choices at identical power settings, what would either of you guess the percentage difference in speed might be? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Off-topic Q | D Ramapriya | Piloting | 17 | July 23rd 09 04:30 AM |
Off-topic, but in need of help | Alan Erskine | Aviation Photos | 20 | January 5th 07 06:21 AM |
Almost on topic... | Richard Lamb | Home Built | 22 | January 30th 06 06:55 PM |
off topic, just a little--maybe? | L.D. | Home Built | 5 | August 27th 05 04:56 PM |
off topic | Randall Robertson | Simulators | 0 | January 2nd 04 01:29 PM |