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 |
#121
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#122
|
|||
|
|||
Tweaking the throttle on approach
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.. |
#123
|
|||
|
|||
Tweaking the throttle on approach
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. |
#124
|
|||
|
|||
Tweaking the throttle on approach
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. |
#125
|
|||
|
|||
Tweaking the throttle on approach
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 |
#126
|
|||
|
|||
Tweaking the throttle on approach
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. ' |
#127
|
|||
|
|||
Tweaking the throttle on approach
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. |
#128
|
|||
|
|||
Tweaking the throttle on approach
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. |
#129
|
|||
|
|||
Tweaking the throttle on approach
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. |
#130
|
|||
|
|||
XXX Tweaking the throttle on approach
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
ID Please - Throttle Quad | Orval Fairbairn | Restoration | 0 | December 17th 05 08:35 PM |
Throttle movement | Max Richter | Naval Aviation | 12 | December 11th 04 11:09 PM |
Engine throttle | Bob Ingraham | Simulators | 13 | December 11th 04 07:17 PM |
Which throttle governer? | Garfiel | Rotorcraft | 1 | December 13th 03 04:30 PM |
Completing the Non-precision approach as a Visual Approach | John Clonts | Instrument Flight Rules | 45 | November 20th 03 05:20 AM |