Tweaking the throttle on approach

chris schrieb:

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..

That's why an instructor is with you. If all you want is to fly twins,
then the only reason to not directly learn in a twin is financial. This
is a very strong reason, though.

Of course there can be other benefits in learning to fly in a basic
airplane, like learning to fly by the seat of your pants, learning to
cope with unimproved backcountry strips and the like, but it seems that
the vast majority of students don't learn that in a 172 either.

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

Don't be so sure of that.

Just for grins, call up you local friendly aviation insurnace broker and
ask what the premiums are for a brand new Baron for a pilot with zero
time in anything (and insurance companies for the don't care how much you
sit in front of MSFS. If you can get him to stop laughing and actually
give you a numberr, expect the policy to require you to essentially
hire a CFI for the first couple of hundred hours AFTER you have your
license.

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

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

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 with lesser reflexes, think doing it that way is perhaps too
easy? "Oh, I'd start in a Baron."

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.

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.







On Mar 8, 2:52 am, 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.

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.

On Mar 8, 2:23 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
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.


Configure all you want. The Microsoft sim-game, played on a
stationary computer at ground level, has very little in common with a
real aircraft moving at altitude.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?).

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

Frank Stutzman writes:

Just for grins, call up you local friendly aviation insurnace broker and
ask what the premiums are for a brand new Baron for a pilot with zero
time in anything ...

Why do you need insurance?

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

How often does that actually happen?

Remember, insurance companies turn a profit, which means that, overall, they
are charging you more for insurance than the risk actually justifies.
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.

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

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

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 with lesser 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.

Mxsmanic wrote:
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.


I am pretty sure I am in a better position to judge this than you. I
have flown real airplanes. I own one. 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. I KNOW which one is real, and
which one isn't. Apparently you mistake your computer world for the
real one. I, however, do not have that problem. It has nothing to do
with configuring my game. It has everything to do with you configuring
your mind.

Gary writes:

Configure all you want. The Microsoft sim-game, played on a
stationary computer at ground level, has very little in common with a
real aircraft moving at altitude.

As I've said, it sounds like you don't have your sim configured correctly.

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

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?

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