Tweaking the throttle on approach

"Andy Hawkins" wrote in message
...
Hi,

In article ,
wrote:
You land in a crab and the plane will straighten out when it touches
down.

How does this straightening out occur? Is rudder applied automatically, or
are you relyinn on the landing gear bringing the plane into line?

Cheers

Andy

If you touch down just a bit sideways, the center of gravity, being ahead of
the main gear, will pull the aircraft in line (assuming nosewheel aircraft).
The mass tries to keep going, and the main gear create a drag force behind
and to one side of the Cg.

That's the advantage of the nosewheel. A tailwheel aircraft, on the other
hand, will want to turn around and roll backwards. Which is why you have to
pay attention when landing a taildragger.

--
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.

An aspect of an expedited approach because of following traffic being
overlooked is to carry more airspeed over the numbers, slow down and
touch down close to where you're going to leave the runway.

Too often guys is light GA airplanes will land a few hundred feet past
the numbers when the turn off is 2500 feet ahead of them. Fly to
within a thousand feet, land, and clear the active.








On Mar 11, 4:23 am, "chris" wrote:
On Mar 11, 6:34 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:

chris writes:

I have done some wacky, crazy approaches when asked to do a short
approach, usually with healthy doses of sideslip..

You're braver than I am.

A short approach doesn't have to be crazy but some of us like it that
way :-)

You don't feel it because the air and the ground are not connected..

That makes sense. I guess there's no telltale squeal of tires.

There is no tyre noise until you touch down, of course, and you need
to look out the window to establish how much you correction you need
to apply..

Andy Hawkins wrote:
Hi,

In article ,
wrote:

You land in a crab and the plane will straighten out when it touches down.


How does this straightening out occur?


Your flight path is down the runway, you are crabbed into the wind.
When you touch down the plane aligns itself with the direction of travel.



Is rudder applied automatically,


No.





or
are you relyinn on the landing gear bringing the plane into line?

The gear is designed for side loads so it's not a problem.

I used to be good at Grand Prix 3 but that didnt make me as good as
Michael Schumachur (sp?)
I used to be good at Call of Duty but that doesn't make me a marine
and capable of killing the enemy with all known forms of arsenal.
I used to be good at Tomb Raider but that didn't make me good at
wearing hotpants and swinging from vines whilst holding my artifacts
recently stolen from Egypt.
I used to be good at watching porn but that didn't make me Ron Jeremy

Like everything you do MX the only way people will believe that
comment is to PROVE it.
How can you continue to pretend that you can do this and you can do
that when the WHOLE WORLD can see you cannot because guess what - YOU
ARE NOT DOING IT!!!!!!!

Sitting on a pc 24/7, is not flying. It is not driving. It is not
REAL and until you get yourself into the left hand seat of an aircraft
you DO NOT know for sure how well YOU will do.

I'm certain that I'd be equally
safe as a pilot. That's the type of personality I have.

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

Hi,

In article ,
wrote:
are you relyinn on the landing gear bringing the plane into line?

The gear is designed for side loads so it's not a problem.

Ah, ok. That's what I was wondering. Thanks for the info.

Andy

Mxsmanic wrote:

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

Bull****. I don't have to preflight the simulator, or pull it from the
hangar, or preheat it, or get it started, or call for the fuel truck
or any of the hundred things that REAL pilots have to deal with with
flying REAL airplanes that you'll never experience in your pathetic
little fantasy world. Don't lecture real pilots (or those who are
attempting to become real pilots) from your distorted self-interested
masturbation.

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.

Again you have no clue. The some of the time will be longer as
you waste time initially being behind the complex aircraft which will
entail more instruction time than if you started simple and worked up.
After you get competence in the simple aircraft, adding the control of
the complex is trivial.

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.

It shouldn't. If you bothered to study anything, the above isn't valid
for even Cessnas. Cessna recommends operating in LEFT or RIGHT at
high altitudes. I'm not going to go into the reasons because your
game doesn't vapor lock.


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.

No more science fiction than your pathetic brain. My aircraft is a low
wing and has a both position on the fuel selector and tip tank
crossfeeds for a long time. But it adds weight, complexity and things
that may go wrong just as easily as forgetting to switch tanks.

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.

Again, your pathatic idealized world doesn't correspond to reality. Do
you think the fuel flow on each engine is identical? Do you think the
line guy filled both tanks to the same level?

I've gotten pretty low in the tanks in the Baron and I've never had to switch
tanks. The only time I've ever had to touch it was for engine failure, in
which case I obviously direct both tanks to the non-failing engine.

You've never flown a baron. Stop lying. Real pilots who haven't caught
on to your bull**** and lies might be dangerously confused.


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).

Again your pathetic ignorance is showing. If you bothered to actually
study things rather than basing the entire world on what you can observe
of Microsoft's simplification of flight you'd know that:

1. The tanks can't be sealed. As fuel goes out, air must go in (either
that or you'll have to have fuel tanks like a playtex baby bottle with
a collapsing bladder.

2. Condensation rarely is the problem. The real problem is poorly
sealing fuel caps.

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.

Again, stop lying. You've never flown a Baron. You don't know how
they behave aerdodynamically.


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

Stories is all you've heard about anything.

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

Neither. If you bothered to learn something about ground handling in
wind you'd know these things. It's the first thing that REAL pilots
do in an airplane.


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.

You've never flown a Baron, and you've never pulled a real yoke back.

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

Possibly. I'm usually at least 10 kts above stall speed so I don't really
know (or maybe you are not talking about a Baron?).

Maybe he's talking about a real Baron and not your pathetic fantasy.
'

Ron Natalie writes:

Bull****. I don't have to preflight the simulator, or pull it from the
hangar, or preheat it, or get it started, or call for the fuel truck
or any of the hundred things that REAL pilots have to deal with with
flying REAL airplanes that you'll never experience in your pathetic
little fantasy world.

You can simulate any of those, if you wish. Most simmers stick to the actual
flying part, however, with perhaps some checklists prior to taxiing out.
Since a simulated aircraft only has problems if you want it to, you can set it
to be 100% reliable and eliminate the need for many preflight checks.

Obviously, these are some of the key advantages of simulation. You can never
skip the checks in real life.

The some of the time will be longer as
you waste time initially being behind the complex aircraft which will
entail more instruction time than if you started simple and worked up.

That's not the way learning works. If you have the capacity to absorb complex
concepts, you can study everything up front. Essentially learning will be the
product of time and effort. You can learn a given amount using moderate
effort and long time, or using considerable effort and shorter time. The
result is the same. This applies to learning to fly just as it applies to
learning anything else.

It shouldn't. If you bothered to study anything, the above isn't valid
for even Cessnas. Cessna recommends operating in LEFT or RIGHT at
high altitudes. I'm not going to go into the reasons because your
game doesn't vapor lock.

I don't fly Cessnas, so it doesn't matter, although of course I'd be
interested in hearing the reasons. It seems like unnecessary complication.

My aircraft is a low
wing and has a both position on the fuel selector and tip tank
crossfeeds for a long time. But it adds weight, complexity and things
that may go wrong just as easily as forgetting to switch tanks.

I'd prefer a system that allows me to draw fuel symmetrically from tanks on
both sides of the aircraft. That way imbalance is one less thing that I'd
have to worry about.

Again, your pathatic idealized world doesn't correspond to reality. Do
you think the fuel flow on each engine is identical? Do you think the
line guy filled both tanks to the same level?

It should be possible to closely approximate both. If there are significant
differences in fuel consumption, an inspection may be warranted. If the line
guy doesn't fill the tanks to the same level, make him come back and do so.

You've never flown a baron. Stop lying. Real pilots who haven't caught
on to your bull**** and lies might be dangerously confused.

If they haven't "caught on," then perhaps nothing of what I'm saying is wrong.

1. The tanks can't be sealed. As fuel goes out, air must go in (either
that or you'll have to have fuel tanks like a playtex baby bottle with
a collapsing bladder.

I believe that has already been done. Also, you can fill the empty space with
dry nitrogen, which helps (this may be expensive on a small aircraft).

2. Condensation rarely is the problem. The real problem is poorly
sealing fuel caps.

You just said they couldn't be sealed, so how is this a problem?

Again, stop lying. You've never flown a Baron. You don't know how
they behave aerdodynamically.

Yes, I do. At least better than someone who has never flown one in real life
or in simulation.

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

I would expect the intellegent disinterested reader to realise the
authority to be respected comparing sim and actual aviation are those
who have used both. Some of those have posted in the group.

If one claims to be speak with authority about both without having
actual experience that same intellegent disinterested observer might
consider that poster to be not so intellegent (clearly not the case of
MX), or not living in the real world (that's an open question) or a
spammer.








On Mar 14, 10:23 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
Ron Natalie writes:
Bull****. I don't have to preflight the simulator, or pull it from the
hangar, or preheat it, or get it started, or call for the fuel truck
or any of the hundred things that REAL pilots have to deal with with
flying REAL airplanes that you'll never experience in your pathetic
little fantasy world.

You can simulate any of those, if you wish. Most simmers stick to the actual
flying part, however, with perhaps some checklists prior to taxiing out.
Since a simulated aircraft only has problems if you want it to, you can set it
to be 100% reliable and eliminate the need for many preflight checks.

Obviously, these are some of the key advantages of simulation. You can never
skip the checks in real life.

The some of the time will be longer as
you waste time initially being behind the complex aircraft which will
entail more instruction time than if you started simple and worked up.

That's not the way learning works. If you have the capacity to absorb complex
concepts, you can study everything up front. Essentially learning will be the
product of time and effort. You can learn a given amount using moderate
effort and long time, or using considerable effort and shorter time. The
result is the same. This applies to learning to fly just as it applies to
learning anything else.

It shouldn't. If you bothered to study anything, the above isn't valid
for even Cessnas. Cessna recommends operating in LEFT or RIGHT at
high altitudes. I'm not going to go into the reasons because your
game doesn't vapor lock.

I don't fly Cessnas, so it doesn't matter, although of course I'd be
interested in hearing the reasons. It seems like unnecessary complication.

My aircraft is a low
wing and has a both position on the fuel selector and tip tank
crossfeeds for a long time. But it adds weight, complexity and things
that may go wrong just as easily as forgetting to switch tanks.

I'd prefer a system that allows me to draw fuel symmetrically from tanks on
both sides of the aircraft. That way imbalance is one less thing that I'd
have to worry about.

Again, your pathatic idealized world doesn't correspond to reality. Do
you think the fuel flow on each engine is identical? Do you think the
line guy filled both tanks to the same level?

It should be possible to closely approximate both. If there are significant
differences in fuel consumption, an inspection may be warranted. If the line
guy doesn't fill the tanks to the same level, make him come back and do so.

You've never flown a baron. Stop lying. Real pilots who haven't caught
on to your bull**** and lies might be dangerously confused.

If they haven't "caught on," then perhaps nothing of what I'm saying is wrong.

1. The tanks can't be sealed. As fuel goes out, air must go in (either
that or you'll have to have fuel tanks like a playtex baby bottle with
a collapsing bladder.

I believe that has already been done. Also, you can fill the empty space with
dry nitrogen, which helps (this may be expensive on a small aircraft).

2. Condensation rarely is the problem. The real problem is poorly
sealing fuel caps.

You just said they couldn't be sealed, so how is this a problem?

Again, stop lying. You've never flown a Baron. You don't know how
they behave aerdodynamically.

Yes, I do. At least better than someone who has never flown one in real life
or in simulation.

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

On Mar 14, 10:23 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
That's not the way learning works. If you have the capacity to absorb complex
concepts, you can study everything up front. Essentially learning will be the
product of time and effort. You can learn a given amount using moderate
effort and long time, or using considerable effort and shorter time. The
result is the same. This applies to learning to fly just as it applies to
learning anything else.

And you wonder why you're not making any money in your part-time
teaching gig...

That's not remotely close to the way real learning works. Everything
builds upon what has been learned before...I can't think of a single
example where 'studying everything up front' is a viable means to gain
understanding of complex concepts. The foundation has to be there
first. There are reasons why kids learn to read with books from Dr.
Seuss rather than Dr. Salk, why the first science class offered in
elementary school isn't quantum physics; why you can't go from junior
high straight to med school, why beginner ski lessons aren't taught on
double black diamond slopes... The list goes on and on...but since
you're going to reply without reading or understanding this post
anyway, I'll not waste the words.

MX, I see the problem, you don't understand what the word flying means.
Here's the OED definition:

Flying: The action of guiding or piloting an aircraft or spacecraft, or
of travelling in one.

Hope this helps clarify your confusion. When a pilot talks about flying
they mean just what they say. You on the other hand are talking about
simulated flight which is not flying at all (since it does not involve
piloting a flying machine). Hence you cannot know what flying a baron
(or any other aircraft?) is really like. I accept you may know alot
about your MS game, but it only a poor simulation of reality.

Cheers Mark

Mxsmanic wrote:
Ron Natalie writes:


Again, stop lying. You've never flown a Baron. You don't know how
they behave aerdodynamically.


Yes, I do. At least better than someone who has never flown one in real life
or in simulation.