Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

C150 or 152 IRL?

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
July 9, 2005 10:18:37 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

From recent posts about a good C150, I got the impression that the C152 is
much better modelled for sim than C150. Is there much difference between
them IRL and, if I have the chance to take a lesson or two, would those with
RL experience have reason to recommend one over the other?

John P.

More about : c150 152 irl

Anonymous
July 9, 2005 10:18:38 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

can you pleasse tell me where can i get CESSNA 152 for free aand also
it should be realistic

_________________________________________________________
Posted via the -Web to Usenet- forums at http://forums.simradar.com
Visit www.simradar.com and try our Flight Simulation Search Engine!
July 9, 2005 10:18:38 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"JohnSP" <petriejj@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:1%Jze.28482$oJ.13281@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> From recent posts about a good C150, I got the impression that the C152 is
> much better modelled for sim than C150. Is there much difference between
> them IRL and, if I have the chance to take a lesson or two, would those
> with
> RL experience have reason to recommend one over the other?
>
> John P.
>
Grab the free 172 from here :- http://www.realairsimulations.com/

Its pretty darn good and good to learn on. My real life training was in
172s, piper Cherokee and tomahawk

Bill
July 9, 2005 11:27:56 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"JohnSP" <petriejj@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:1%Jze.28482$oJ.13281@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> From recent posts about a good C150, I got the impression that the C152 is
> much better modelled for sim than C150. Is there much difference between
> them IRL and, if I have the chance to take a lesson or two, would those
> with
> RL experience have reason to recommend one over the other?
>
> John P.
>
>

There really isn't much difference.
The 152 engine has 10HP more. There is an aerobatic 152, but the basic model
is almost indistinguishable from the 150
Anonymous
July 9, 2005 12:17:32 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"Steph" <steph@vancouvers.island> wrote in message
news:00Lze.1916044$Xk.645207@pd7tw3no...
>
> There really isn't much difference.
> The 152 engine has 10HP more. There is an aerobatic 152, but the basic
model
> is almost indistinguishable from the 150

That plus the flaps and the fact that the 152's have a few years less
sweat in them from nervous students! <G>

Earl
--
Earl Needham
Clovis, New Mexico USA
Anonymous
July 9, 2005 12:37:35 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

Must be the 152.... it's got a bigger number... or am I easily fooled by
marketting ploys?

"JohnSP" <petriejj@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:1%Jze.28482$oJ.13281@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> From recent posts about a good C150, I got the impression that the C152 is
> much better modelled for sim than C150. Is there much difference between
> them IRL and, if I have the chance to take a lesson or two, would those
> with
> RL experience have reason to recommend one over the other?
>
> John P.
>
>
July 9, 2005 7:48:44 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"Earl Needham" <munged@3lefties.com> wrote in message
news:11cvn3vrslt9314@corp.supernews.com...
> "Steph" <steph@vancouvers.island> wrote in message
> news:00Lze.1916044$Xk.645207@pd7tw3no...
>>
>> There really isn't much difference.
>> The 152 engine has 10HP more. There is an aerobatic 152, but the basic
> model
>> is almost indistinguishable from the 150
>
> That plus the flaps and the fact that the 152's have a few years less
> sweat in them from nervous students! <G>
>
> Earl
> --
> Earl Needham
> Clovis, New Mexico USA
>
>

What's the difference with the flaps, Earl?
Anonymous
July 10, 2005 5:04:23 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"amangill" <amangill@forums.simradar.com> wrote in message
news:1120891654.26296@forums.simradar.com...
> can you pleasse tell me where can i get CESSNA 152 for free aand also
> it should be realistic
>
> _________________________________________________________
> Posted via the -Web to Usenet- forums at http://forums.simradar.com
> Visit www.simradar.com and try our Flight Simulation Search Engine!

See the thread A good Cessna 150? on 6.7.05
Anonymous
July 10, 2005 11:49:20 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

check out the FREE Cessna 152 II at www.carenado.com.
Tom
"amangill" <amangill@forums.simradar.com> wrote in message
news:1120891654.26296@forums.simradar.com...
> can you pleasse tell me where can i get CESSNA 152 for free aand also
> it should be realistic
>
> _________________________________________________________
> Posted via the -Web to Usenet- forums at http://forums.simradar.com
> Visit www.simradar.com and try our Flight Simulation Search Engine!
Anonymous
July 10, 2005 5:19:32 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

The 150 has 40° flaps, the 152 has a max of 30°.

Early 150s also had a straight vertical stab vice the swept version that was
carried through to the end of the 152 production. The early 150s also had
no rear window, just small port-hole windows and triangular shaped doors
that were carried from the Cessna 140/140A line.
July 11, 2005 7:24:38 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

<NOBODYIMPORTANT@nobodyimportant.biz> wrote in message
news:yf9Ae.3059$us5.1324@fe06.usenetserver.com...
> The 150 has 40° flaps, the 152 has a max of 30°.
>
> Early 150s also had a straight vertical stab vice the swept version that
was
> carried through to the end of the 152 production. The early 150s also had
> no rear window, just small port-hole windows and triangular shaped doors
> that were carried from the Cessna 140/140A line.
>

That 40° flaps works like speed brake and is great for steep approaches if
you know what you are doing.
I've never been into C152, but from pictures I've seen change in flaps
switch & indicator. Much easier to operate I believe.
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 4:44:37 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 15:24:38 +0200, "rookie" <enes@jware.hr.nospam>
wrote:

>
><NOBODYIMPORTANT@nobodyimportant.biz> wrote in message
>news:yf9Ae.3059$us5.1324@fe06.usenetserver.com...
>> The 150 has 40° flaps, the 152 has a max of 30°.
>>
>> Early 150s also had a straight vertical stab vice the swept version that
>was
>> carried through to the end of the 152 production. The early 150s also had
>> no rear window, just small port-hole windows and triangular shaped doors
>> that were carried from the Cessna 140/140A line.
>>
>
>That 40° flaps works like speed brake and is great for steep approaches if
>you know what you are doing.
>I've never been into C152, but from pictures I've seen change in flaps
>switch & indicator. Much easier to operate I believe.
>

The 152 was a bit more forgiving if the student left the flaps down on
a go around or touch and go. The 150 with 40 degrees climbed like a
brick and more than one student met his demise when forgetting to dump
the flaps on climb out.....

Bob
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 3:41:02 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

I always liked the 40° myself... the switch on the 150s was a simple
up/off/down switch with a long indicator behind the windshield. You had to
use them blindly (by "feel") or look over at the indicator. The 152 has a
4-position paddle switch. Full up is "up", then it has three detent
positions for 10, 20, and 30 degrees. You can select ANY position you want
(5, 15, 25 degrees, for example) but the detents let you push the paddle
down to a know position without looking. The indicator is built into the
side of the paddle assembly and moves with the flaps.

The landing gear is different too by the way. The 150s (not sure if this
applies to the whole line or not, I can't remember) used a flat bent steel
gear, the 152 has a tubular steel gear with streamlined metal farings
covering the tube.
July 12, 2005 10:19:20 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"Capt Bob" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:5g46d15eecg49e2mb7n43i16bdabbmta1m@4ax.com...
>
> The 152 was a bit more forgiving if the student left the flaps down on
> a go around or touch and go. The 150 with 40 degrees climbed like a
> brick and more than one student met his demise when forgetting to dump
> the flaps on climb out.....
>
> Bob


I believe that.
C-150 with 40 flaps bleeded airspeed almost instantly. There is no way one
could climb out over any obstacle (not to mention standard 50 feet one).
Anonymous
July 13, 2005 2:35:52 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 18:19:20 +0200, "rookie"
<enes.handzar@vip.hr.removethis> wrote:

>
>"Capt Bob" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:5g46d15eecg49e2mb7n43i16bdabbmta1m@4ax.com...
>>
>> The 152 was a bit more forgiving if the student left the flaps down on
>> a go around or touch and go. The 150 with 40 degrees climbed like a
>> brick and more than one student met his demise when forgetting to dump
>> the flaps on climb out.....
>>
>> Bob
>
>
>I believe that.
>C-150 with 40 flaps bleeded airspeed almost instantly. There is no way one
>could climb out over any obstacle (not to mention standard 50 feet one).
>

Hence the reason for the high fatality rate. Stall, possible spin
entry , crash. Saw it happen to a student in Real Life.
July 13, 2005 1:25:04 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"Capt Bob" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ubh8d1d9gava9loe2af9h84lf26iig0go4@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 18:19:20 +0200, "rookie"
> <enes.handzar@vip.hr.removethis> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Capt Bob" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> >news:5g46d15eecg49e2mb7n43i16bdabbmta1m@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> The 152 was a bit more forgiving if the student left the flaps down on
> >> a go around or touch and go. The 150 with 40 degrees climbed like a
> >> brick and more than one student met his demise when forgetting to dump
> >> the flaps on climb out.....
> >>
> >> Bob
> >
> >
> >I believe that.
> >C-150 with 40 flaps bleeded airspeed almost instantly. There is no way
one
> >could climb out over any obstacle (not to mention standard 50 feet one).
> >
>
> Hence the reason for the high fatality rate. Stall, possible spin
> entry , crash. Saw it happen to a student in Real Life.

On the other hand, other aircraft I flew during my PPL training was
PA-28-161, also having 40 flaps (0-10-25-40). So instructor really insisted
on learning me the proper use of flaps.
July 16, 2005 4:42:44 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"Capt Bob" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:5g46d15eecg49e2mb7n43i16bdabbmta1m@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 15:24:38 +0200, "rookie" <enes@jware.hr.nospam>
> wrote:
>
>>
>><NOBODYIMPORTANT@nobodyimportant.biz> wrote in message
>>news:yf9Ae.3059$us5.1324@fe06.usenetserver.com...
>>> The 150 has 40° flaps, the 152 has a max of 30°.
>>>
>>> Early 150s also had a straight vertical stab vice the swept version that
>>was
>>> carried through to the end of the 152 production. The early 150s also
>>> had
>>> no rear window, just small port-hole windows and triangular shaped doors
>>> that were carried from the Cessna 140/140A line.
>>>
>>
>>That 40° flaps works like speed brake and is great for steep approaches if
>>you know what you are doing.
>>I've never been into C152, but from pictures I've seen change in flaps
>>switch & indicator. Much easier to operate I believe.
>>
>
> The 152 was a bit more forgiving if the student left the flaps down on
> a go around or touch and go. The 150 with 40 degrees climbed like a
> brick and more than one student met his demise when forgetting to dump
> the flaps on climb out.....
>
> Bob

You wouldn't want to "dump" them on climb out, you want to do that before
you leave the runway.
Anonymous
July 16, 2005 3:17:33 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 00:42:44 -0700, "Ditch" <goverticl@aol.compost>
wrote:

>
>"Capt Bob" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:5g46d15eecg49e2mb7n43i16bdabbmta1m@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 15:24:38 +0200, "rookie" <enes@jware.hr.nospam>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><NOBODYIMPORTANT@nobodyimportant.biz> wrote in message
>>>news:yf9Ae.3059$us5.1324@fe06.usenetserver.com...
>>>> The 150 has 40° flaps, the 152 has a max of 30°.
>>>>
>>>> Early 150s also had a straight vertical stab vice the swept version that
>>>was
>>>> carried through to the end of the 152 production. The early 150s also
>>>> had
>>>> no rear window, just small port-hole windows and triangular shaped doors
>>>> that were carried from the Cessna 140/140A line.
>>>>
>>>
>>>That 40° flaps works like speed brake and is great for steep approaches if
>>>you know what you are doing.
>>>I've never been into C152, but from pictures I've seen change in flaps
>>>switch & indicator. Much easier to operate I believe.
>>>
>>
>> The 152 was a bit more forgiving if the student left the flaps down on
>> a go around or touch and go. The 150 with 40 degrees climbed like a
>> brick and more than one student met his demise when forgetting to dump
>> the flaps on climb out.....
>>
>> Bob
>
>You wouldn't want to "dump" them on climb out, you want to do that before
>you leave the runway.
>

Oh really, you mean you are supposed to retract the flaps before
lifting off again on a balked landing or touch and go?? Well I'll
be darned. I must remember to tell that to all the student pilots I
meet :) 


Bob
Anonymous
July 16, 2005 3:17:34 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

Capt Bob <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

> Oh really, you mean you are supposed to retract the flaps before
> lifting off again on a balked landing or touch and go?? Well I'll
> be darned. I must remember to tell that to all the student pilots I
> meet :) 

I see your point about the balked landing, but what is wrong about
retracting flaps while still on the runway during a T&G? It's not like the
few extra feet of used runway is going to make a difference to a C150/2 or
even a C172.

Seems very prudent to me.

--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Anonymous
July 16, 2005 3:17:35 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"Peter R." <pjricc@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2wc8k002sp43.dlg@ID-259643.user.individual.net...
> Capt Bob <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> Oh really, you mean you are supposed to retract the flaps before
>> lifting off again on a balked landing or touch and go?? Well I'll
>> be darned. I must remember to tell that to all the student pilots I
>> meet :) 
>
> I see your point about the balked landing, but what is wrong about
> retracting flaps while still on the runway during a T&G? It's not like
> the
> few extra feet of used runway is going to make a difference to a C150/2 or
> even a C172.
>
> Seems very prudent to me.
>
On the newer Cessnas with electric flaps, it can sometimes feel like a very
long time waiting for the flaps to retract as you see the trees coming up.
( Of course, this assumes poor technique to get into that situation in the
first place, but those who fly little Cessnas are definitely not immune to
such things.)

On the older versions with a big ol' manual handle between the seats, you
could get a clean wing in a second or so if needed.

Also, those 40 degree flaps weren't called "Para-Lift" just for marketing.
They did make it seem you were coming straight down.

Bob McKellar
Anonymous
July 16, 2005 5:38:50 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 09:06:14 -0400, "Peter R." <pjricc@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Capt Bob <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> Oh really, you mean you are supposed to retract the flaps before
>> lifting off again on a balked landing or touch and go?? Well I'll
>> be darned. I must remember to tell that to all the student pilots I
>> meet :) 
>
>I see your point about the balked landing, but what is wrong about
>retracting flaps while still on the runway during a T&G? It's not like the
>few extra feet of used runway is going to make a difference to a C150/2 or
>even a C172.
>
>Seems very prudent to me.


Peter,

You seem to be missing the entire point of this discussion about the
150 vs 152 and flap usage by non-experienced pilots. When you are
teaching someone to fly, they need all the help they can get to try
and keep them out of trouble. Cessna made a conscious decision when
they designed the 152 and the newer 172's to limit flap extension to
30 degrees. There had been quite a few accidents with the 40 degree
flap capability, where the newbie pilot would inadvertently forget to
retract the flaps after either a touch and go or balked landing. He
would see that for some strange reason the aircraft would not climb at
all even with full power. He would also see that the trees at the end
of the runway were coming up fast, so the only thing he could think of
doing ( not realizing that he had forgotten to retract the flaps)
would be to try and climb anyway by applying more back pressure to
raise the nose. The result was a stall, and a crash and one more dead
pilot. This is risk is reduced to some extent by limiting the flap
extension to 30 degrees This allows the plane at least to fly with a
little bit of climb capability and hopefully the pilot will realize in
that time that he needs to slowly raise the flaps to establish a safe
climb. If a pilot needs 40 degrees of flap in either a 150 or a 172,
then his approach is way to high and he should learn how to fly a
proper approach.

Bob
Anonymous
July 16, 2005 5:38:51 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

Capt Bob <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

> You seem to be missing the entire point of this discussion about
> the 150 vs 152 and flap usage by non-experienced pilots.

Bob, thank you for your concern but I completely understand this particular
issue of flap usage in small aircraft. This is the particular line of
conversation to which I was responding.

You stated this:

> more than one student met his demise when forgetting to dump
> the flaps on climb out.....

Ditch stated this:

>You wouldn't want to "dump" them on climb out, you want to do
> that before you leave the runway.

Then you replied:

> Oh really, you mean you are supposed to retract the flaps before
> lifting off again on a balked landing or touch and go??

Now, upon rereading your comment above I suppose you could have been
sarcastic, but sarcasm doesn't work too well in this medium and often is
misinterpreted.

Without any clues to the contrary, I read the above literally and
interpreted your point that one can retract flaps while in the air. In a
balked landing situation that is obvious, but I thought you were implying
that during a T&G one should also retract the flaps while climbing out,
rather than on the runway.

--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 5:50:52 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 09:41:41 -0400, "Bob McKellar" <bob@coastcomp.com>
wrote:

>
>"Peter R." <pjricc@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:2wc8k002sp43.dlg@ID-259643.user.individual.net...
>> Capt Bob <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Oh really, you mean you are supposed to retract the flaps before
>>> lifting off again on a balked landing or touch and go?? Well I'll
>>> be darned. I must remember to tell that to all the student pilots I
>>> meet :) 
>>
>> I see your point about the balked landing, but what is wrong about
>> retracting flaps while still on the runway during a T&G? It's not like
>> the
>> few extra feet of used runway is going to make a difference to a C150/2 or
>> even a C172.
>>
>> Seems very prudent to me.
>>
>On the newer Cessnas with electric flaps, it can sometimes feel like a very
>long time waiting for the flaps to retract as you see the trees coming up.
>( Of course, this assumes poor technique to get into that situation in the
>first place, but those who fly little Cessnas are definitely not immune to
>such things.)
>
>On the older versions with a big ol' manual handle between the seats, you
>could get a clean wing in a second or so if needed.
>
>Also, those 40 degree flaps weren't called "Para-Lift" just for marketing.
>They did make it seem you were coming straight down.
>
>Bob McKellar
>

Watched a guy once in a Piper Warrior with the instant release
mechanical flap handle , do a touch and go at Ft Lauderdale's 9R.
He was about 3/4 of the way down the runway and realized that he had
forgotten to retract the 30 degrees of flaps he had deployed. So he
apparently grabbed the flap handle and released them in one fell
swoop.. we were all waiting for parts of his airplane to come rolling
down the runway... lucky for him, he missed the fence at the end of
the runway by inches as his aircraft sank like a brick. I'll take
the electric flap anytime ............ :) 
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 5:50:53 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"Capt Bob" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:D vdjd19tf06k36r2embgeuconlleqc4m92@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 09:41:41 -0400, "Bob McKellar" <bob@coastcomp.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Peter R." <pjricc@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:2wc8k002sp43.dlg@ID-259643.user.individual.net...
>>> Capt Bob <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Oh really, you mean you are supposed to retract the flaps before
>>>> lifting off again on a balked landing or touch and go?? Well I'll
>>>> be darned. I must remember to tell that to all the student pilots I
>>>> meet :) 
>>>
>>> I see your point about the balked landing, but what is wrong about
>>> retracting flaps while still on the runway during a T&G? It's not like
>>> the
>>> few extra feet of used runway is going to make a difference to a C150/2
>>> or
>>> even a C172.
>>>
>>> Seems very prudent to me.
>>>
>>On the newer Cessnas with electric flaps, it can sometimes feel like a
>>very
>>long time waiting for the flaps to retract as you see the trees coming up.
>>( Of course, this assumes poor technique to get into that situation in the
>>first place, but those who fly little Cessnas are definitely not immune to
>>such things.)
>>
>>On the older versions with a big ol' manual handle between the seats, you
>>could get a clean wing in a second or so if needed.
>>
>>Also, those 40 degree flaps weren't called "Para-Lift" just for marketing.
>>They did make it seem you were coming straight down.
>>
>>Bob McKellar
>>
>
> Watched a guy once in a Piper Warrior with the instant release
> mechanical flap handle , do a touch and go at Ft Lauderdale's 9R.
> He was about 3/4 of the way down the runway and realized that he had
> forgotten to retract the 30 degrees of flaps he had deployed. So he
> apparently grabbed the flap handle and released them in one fell
> swoop.. we were all waiting for parts of his airplane to come rolling
> down the runway... lucky for him, he missed the fence at the end of
> the runway by inches as his aircraft sank like a brick. I'll take
> the electric flap anytime ............ :) 
>

Well. there is no known cure for stupidity.

If you have any feel for the habits of air molecules (and one should, in
this business) you can grab that big old handle, depress the top button, and
use it as another control surface, bringing up the flaps in a prudent
manner, feeling the pressures as you go. Of course, this assumes the
throttle is already advanced, or you run into a shortage of available
extremities.

BTW, I discussed the flap deal with my umpteenth instructor ( I went 13
years from solo to PPL) and asked him why I was expected to use full flaps
all the time on my 150 when it was both unnecessary and potentially
dangerous. He said "I'm not teaching you to fly a 150." He wanted to
instill flap habits for bigger iron. But when he were'nt lookin', I didn't
use that much flap very often.

It was fun once, when I had a C-130 in the pattern behind me. High cruise
speed[1] down final, idle throttle and full flaps just before the numbers, a
solid plant on the concrete and a left turn off the active after about 12
feet of ground run.

I do feel the biggest lack in FS is the lack of pressure feel in the
controls. I don't bother with it much, just fly on AP most of the time.

Bob McKellar

[1] In 150 terms, barely into 3 digit knots range
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 5:56:18 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 11:58:41 -0400, "Peter R." <pjricc@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Capt Bob <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> You seem to be missing the entire point of this discussion about
>> the 150 vs 152 and flap usage by non-experienced pilots.
>
>Bob, thank you for your concern but I completely understand this particular
>issue of flap usage in small aircraft. This is the particular line of
>conversation to which I was responding.
>
>You stated this:
>
>> more than one student met his demise when forgetting to dump
>> the flaps on climb out.....
>
>Ditch stated this:
>
>>You wouldn't want to "dump" them on climb out, you want to do
>> that before you leave the runway.
>
>Then you replied:
>
>> Oh really, you mean you are supposed to retract the flaps before
>> lifting off again on a balked landing or touch and go??
>
>Now, upon rereading your comment above I suppose you could have been
>sarcastic, but sarcasm doesn't work too well in this medium and often is
>misinterpreted.
>
>Without any clues to the contrary, I read the above literally and
>interpreted your point that one can retract flaps while in the air. In a
>balked landing situation that is obvious, but I thought you were implying
>that during a T&G one should also retract the flaps while climbing out,
>rather than on the runway.


I was being sarcastic and I would have thought that it would have been
obvious. Sorry for the misunderstanding. The person that I was
replying to obviously didn't understand the ppoint that I was trying
to make , that the 30 degree flap situation was decided on because of
the safety factor, especially in a training aircraft like the
152-172..... because of people that have been killed mismanaging the
aircraft flaps

Bob
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 5:56:19 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

Capt Bob <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

> I was being sarcastic and I would have thought that it would have been
> obvious.

Just when you think it is obvious in this medium that someone is being
sarcastic, the poster to which you are responding pulls a fast one and
admits he was serious. :)  It is a no-win situation.

--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 4:47:34 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 22:26:58 -0400, "Bob McKellar" <bob@coastcomp.com>
wrote:

>
>"Capt Bob" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:D vdjd19tf06k36r2embgeuconlleqc4m92@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 09:41:41 -0400, "Bob McKellar" <bob@coastcomp.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Peter R." <pjricc@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:2wc8k002sp43.dlg@ID-259643.user.individual.net...
>>>> Capt Bob <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Oh really, you mean you are supposed to retract the flaps before
>>>>> lifting off again on a balked landing or touch and go?? Well I'll
>>>>> be darned. I must remember to tell that to all the student pilots I
>>>>> meet :) 
>>>>
>>>> I see your point about the balked landing, but what is wrong about
>>>> retracting flaps while still on the runway during a T&G? It's not like
>>>> the
>>>> few extra feet of used runway is going to make a difference to a C150/2
>>>> or
>>>> even a C172.
>>>>
>>>> Seems very prudent to me.
>>>>
>>>On the newer Cessnas with electric flaps, it can sometimes feel like a
>>>very
>>>long time waiting for the flaps to retract as you see the trees coming up.
>>>( Of course, this assumes poor technique to get into that situation in the
>>>first place, but those who fly little Cessnas are definitely not immune to
>>>such things.)
>>>
>>>On the older versions with a big ol' manual handle between the seats, you
>>>could get a clean wing in a second or so if needed.
>>>
>>>Also, those 40 degree flaps weren't called "Para-Lift" just for marketing.
>>>They did make it seem you were coming straight down.
>>>
>>>Bob McKellar
>>>
>>
>> Watched a guy once in a Piper Warrior with the instant release
>> mechanical flap handle , do a touch and go at Ft Lauderdale's 9R.
>> He was about 3/4 of the way down the runway and realized that he had
>> forgotten to retract the 30 degrees of flaps he had deployed. So he
>> apparently grabbed the flap handle and released them in one fell
>> swoop.. we were all waiting for parts of his airplane to come rolling
>> down the runway... lucky for him, he missed the fence at the end of
>> the runway by inches as his aircraft sank like a brick. I'll take
>> the electric flap anytime ............ :) 
>>
>
>Well. there is no known cure for stupidity.
>
>If you have any feel for the habits of air molecules (and one should, in
>this business) you can grab that big old handle, depress the top button, and
>use it as another control surface, bringing up the flaps in a prudent
>manner, feeling the pressures as you go. Of course, this assumes the
>throttle is already advanced, or you run into a shortage of available
>extremities.
>
>BTW, I discussed the flap deal with my umpteenth instructor ( I went 13
>years from solo to PPL) and asked him why I was expected to use full flaps
>all the time on my 150 when it was both unnecessary and potentially
>dangerous. He said "I'm not teaching you to fly a 150." He wanted to
>instill flap habits for bigger iron. But when he were'nt lookin', I didn't
>use that much flap very often.
>

I have known many excellent instructors over the years who have
totally disagreed with your umpteenth instructor on full flaps for low
time solo pilots. A student pilot that is as nervous as a wet hen to
start out, with doesn't think about the habits of air molecules as he
is racing towards the obstacles at the end of the runway with full
power and an airplane that won't seem to climb. He is in a panic,
and if it dawns on him that the full flaps he has deployed are
responsible for his situation, there is a strong urge to get rid of
the problem immediately and start climbing before impact time. That
is when the accidents occur. I have spent over 30 years reading Air
Safety publications and NTSB reports as well as Flying Magazine
Aftermath. This flap issue has come up again and again..... By the
way, have you noticed in real aircraft like the B-767 and 737 that
there are gates for the flaps so the pilot wont inadvertently release
them all at once.............?



Bob
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 4:47:35 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

Previous discussion snipped to conserve electrons
>
> I have known many excellent instructors over the years who have
> totally disagreed with your umpteenth instructor on full flaps for low
> time solo pilots.

There are lots of opinions out there, which is as it should be. I didn't
really agree with him either, but at least he explained the rationale so I
could use what I wanted. Also, he knew the check pilot - I only did one
landing on my checkride, a short field landing over a high obstacle
(imaginary of course) and I did fine. That was in my '67 electric flapped
( I think) 150. Later, after the 150 broke and I moved to a '56 172, I
almost never used flaps for routine landings. Most of my flying was to long
runwayed controlled fields and I needed to get out of the way as soon as
possible.

>A student pilot that is as nervous as a wet hen to
> start out, with doesn't think about the habits of air molecules as he
> is racing towards the obstacles at the end of the runway with full
> power and an airplane that won't seem to climb. He is in a panic,
> and if it dawns on him that the full flaps he has deployed are
> responsible for his situation, there is a strong urge to get rid of
> the problem immediately and start climbing before impact time.

I was lucky, I think, that I did not actually fly a lot until I was older.
I was a teenager for my first episode and the scenario above was much more
likely. By the time I started again, I had college, driving a big gray
ship, parenthood, a home mortgage and other experiences under my belt[1], so
panic was a little less likely.

> That
> is when the accidents occur. I have spent over 30 years reading Air
> Safety publications and NTSB reports as well as Flying Magazine
> Aftermath. This flap issue has come up again and again..... By the
> way, have you noticed in real aircraft like the B-767 and 737 that
> there are gates for the flaps so the pilot wont inadvertently release
> them all at once.............?
>

Yep, even Cessnas got those eventually, I think. It's all a trade-off, like
most things.

I forget to raise the flaps ( and even gear ) sometimes in the sim. Here
again, the lack of physical and realistic sound and visual cues makes it
easier to screw up than in RL.

Bob McKellar

[1] I guess that's why my belt was getting longer all the time.
July 17, 2005 5:35:21 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

> >
> > Watched a guy once in a Piper Warrior with the instant release
> > mechanical flap handle , do a touch and go at Ft Lauderdale's 9R.
> > He was about 3/4 of the way down the runway and realized that he had
> > forgotten to retract the 30 degrees of flaps he had deployed. So he

I guess it was 40 degrees flaps. On a warrior I fly there is no 30 degrees
flaps.


> > apparently grabbed the flap handle and released them in one fell
> > swoop.. we were all waiting for parts of his airplane to come rolling
> > down the runway... lucky for him, he missed the fence at the end of
> > the runway by inches as his aircraft sank like a brick. I'll take
> > the electric flap anytime ............ :) 
> >
>
> Well. there is no known cure for stupidity.
>
> If you have any feel for the habits of air molecules (and one should, in
> this business) you can grab that big old handle, depress the top button,
and
> use it as another control surface, bringing up the flaps in a prudent
> manner, feeling the pressures as you go. Of course, this assumes the
> throttle is already advanced, or you run into a shortage of available
> extremities.
>
> BTW, I discussed the flap deal with my umpteenth instructor ( I went 13
> years from solo to PPL) and asked him why I was expected to use full flaps
> all the time on my 150 when it was both unnecessary and potentially
> dangerous. He said "I'm not teaching you to fly a 150." He wanted to
> instill flap habits for bigger iron. But when he were'nt lookin', I
didn't
> use that much flap very often.

One of my instructors, retired DC-10 captain, taught me: "Every landing is
full flaps landing". I really try to fly that way every since.

>
> It was fun once, when I had a C-130 in the pattern behind me. High cruise
> speed[1] down final, idle throttle and full flaps just before the numbers,
a
> solid plant on the concrete and a left turn off the active after about 12
> feet of ground run.

It's not a question what is installed on airplane, it's how you use it. I
really like having an option of 40 degrees flaps for a short runway, or
(hopefully not) emergency landing somewhere in the field. I guess someone
could argue about 40 degrees flaps on big iron since it prevents climb out
on go around. Let's make it clear, I agree this could be problem with some
pilots, but with proper training this should not be the problem. If a pilot
is not trained for full flaps, then there will be no habit for retracting
flaps. Habit is a habit, my first take off from 3000' runway with C-150 was
short-field take off since such take off was only thing I did before.

>
> I do feel the biggest lack in FS is the lack of pressure feel in the
> controls. I don't bother with it much, just fly on AP most of the time.
>
> Bob McKellar
>
> [1] In 150 terms, barely into 3 digit knots range
>
>
>
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 9:48:26 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 13:35:21 +0200, "rookie"
<enes.handzar@vip.hr.removethis> wrote:


>
>One of my instructors, retired DC-10 captain, taught me: "Every landing is
>full flaps landing". I really try to fly that way every since.

That might work in a DC-10, but as others have pointed out - not in
the Cessna 172 models with 40 degree flaps. The only time you should
need 40 is for short field landings. And then you better be
retracting them as you touch down. Retracting flaps after touchdown -
it is the recommended procedure in order to maximize braking
effectivness for short fields. If there are obstacles at the departure
end on an aborted landing you should have in mind getting up some
flaps anyway. Most 172 POH's recommend no flaps for short field
take-offs (Vx). A few specify 10 degrees. You should not be going
around on a short field with obstacles & full flaps and, you should'nt
put yourself in that situation in the first place.
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 9:48:27 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

S Herman <ask@youmayget.com> wrote:

> Retracting flaps after touchdown -
> it is the recommended procedure in order to maximize braking
> effectivness for short fields.

Aint' that the truth! During one solo practice session in a C172, I had
performed a short field landing and failed to put the flaps up before I
started to brake hard. I left a good sized patch of rubber on the runway
from each locked-up main tire thanks to the fact that the wings still had
some lift remaining.

> Most 172 POH's recommend no flaps for short field
> take-offs (Vx). A few specify 10 degrees.

All C172s produced since 1998 (R and S models) specify 10 degrees of flaps
for both short and soft field departures in their POH's. Of course, it is
worth mentioning that these models only have a maximum flap deflection of
30 degrees, not 40.

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 10:02:04 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 10:39:14 -0400, "Bob McKellar" <bob@coastcomp.com>
wrote:
> Later, after the 150 broke and I moved to a '56 172, I
>almost never used flaps for routine landings. Most of my flying was to long
>runwayed controlled fields and I needed to get out of the way as soon as
>possible.

I've not flown a '56 172, but what you describe is not a good
"routine" practice in most 172's. It is much easier on the airframe,
the tires, the brakes, etc. to land the way the plane the way it was
designed, and that is with flaps. Besides allowing you to descend at a
steeper angle - flaps lower your stall speed. The pitch angle with
flaps also encourages the mains touching downj first, folowed by the
nosewheel. A good landing is one where the wheels touch ground as the
plane stalls. The slower you are going when this happens, the better -
both from a safety and wear & tear point of view. If you land at Vso
(stall speed with flaps) anywhere near the numbers, you will have no
problems getting off at the first exit in a 172. If you come in fast
with no flaps and go past the first exit, you WILL be wasting time
having to go to the next exit.
July 19, 2005 2:58:11 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"S Herman" <ask@youmayget.com> wrote in message
news:93qnd112ohu0tbnkb7nc94q4biggr1dnon@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 13:35:21 +0200, "rookie"
> <enes.handzar@vip.hr.removethis> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >One of my instructors, retired DC-10 captain, taught me: "Every landing
is
> >full flaps landing". I really try to fly that way every since.
>
> That might work in a DC-10, but as others have pointed out - not in
> the Cessna 172 models with 40 degree flaps. The only time you should
> need 40 is for short field landings. And then you better be
> retracting them as you touch down.

That is exactly what I always do. Stabilize aircraft (no brakes yet), flip
flaps switch up , then brakes. But it has nothing to do with approach and
final. It is more related to take off.


> Retracting flaps after touchdown -
> it is the recommended procedure in order to maximize braking
> effectivness for short fields. If there are obstacles at the departure
> end on an aborted landing you should have in mind getting up some
> flaps anyway. Most 172 POH's recommend no flaps for short field
> take-offs (Vx). A few specify 10 degrees. You should not be going
> around on a short field with obstacles & full flaps and, you should'nt
> put yourself in that situation in the first place.

Never say never, but I haven't been in such situation so far. As I said, I
retract flaps as soon as airplane is on the ground.
Anonymous
July 19, 2005 3:41:49 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 18:02:04 GMT, S Herman <ask@youmayget.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 10:39:14 -0400, "Bob McKellar" <bob@coastcomp.com>
>wrote:
>> Later, after the 150 broke and I moved to a '56 172, I
>>almost never used flaps for routine landings. Most of my flying was to long
>>runwayed controlled fields and I needed to get out of the way as soon as
>>possible.
>
>I've not flown a '56 172, but what you describe is not a good
>"routine" practice in most 172's. It is much easier on the airframe,
>the tires, the brakes, etc. to land the way the plane the way it was
>designed, and that is with flaps. Besides allowing you to descend at a
>steeper angle - flaps lower your stall speed. The pitch angle with
>flaps also encourages the mains touching downj first, folowed by the
>nosewheel. A good landing is one where the wheels touch ground as the
>plane stalls. The slower you are going when this happens, the better -
>both from a safety and wear & tear point of view. If you land at Vso
>(stall speed with flaps) anywhere near the numbers, you will have no
>problems getting off at the first exit in a 172. If you come in fast
>with no flaps and go past the first exit, you WILL be wasting time
>having to go to the next exit.
Anonymous
July 19, 2005 3:43:24 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 22:58:11 +0200, "rookie"
<enes.handzar@vip.hr.removethis> wrote:

>
>"S Herman" <ask@youmayget.com> wrote in message
>news:93qnd112ohu0tbnkb7nc94q4biggr1dnon@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 13:35:21 +0200, "rookie"
>> <enes.handzar@vip.hr.removethis> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >
>> >One of my instructors, retired DC-10 captain, taught me: "Every landing
>is
>> >full flaps landing". I really try to fly that way every since.
>>
>> That might work in a DC-10, but as others have pointed out - not in
>> the Cessna 172 models with 40 degree flaps. The only time you should
>> need 40 is for short field landings. And then you better be
>> retracting them as you touch down.
>
>That is exactly what I always do. Stabilize aircraft (no brakes yet), flip
>flaps switch up , then brakes. But it has nothing to do with approach and
>final. It is more related to take off.
>
>
>> Retracting flaps after touchdown -
>> it is the recommended procedure in order to maximize braking
>> effectivness for short fields. If there are obstacles at the departure
>> end on an aborted landing you should have in mind getting up some
>> flaps anyway. Most 172 POH's recommend no flaps for short field
>> take-offs (Vx). A few specify 10 degrees. You should not be going
>> around on a short field with obstacles & full flaps and, you should'nt
>> put yourself in that situation in the first place.
>
>Never say never, but I haven't been in such situation so far. As I said, I
>retract flaps as soon as airplane is on the ground.
>


Dumping the flaps after touchdown minimizes any chance of going back
in the air again. It is a good safety practice.


Bob
Anonymous
July 19, 2005 12:55:39 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

Capt Bob <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

> Dumping the flaps after touchdown minimizes any chance of going back
> in the air again. It is a good safety practice.

Hmmm... a couple of points to counter this advice:

In a complex aircraft, the risks of a pilot accidentally grabbing the
landing gear handle rather than the flaps lever during the high workload
landing roll-out outweigh the safety issues of potentially going back in
the air.

There are many examples in the NTSB accident reports where pilots have done
just this. Due either to a faulty gear squat switch or the aircraft
hitting a bump in the runway and momentarily unloading the gear, the
aircraft's gear retracted while the aircraft was on the ground.

Here a few examples of this in just the last few years. There are plenty
more:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20040319X00352...
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20040319X00347...
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20021126X05532...

Here's one during taxi!

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20040329X00381...


Secondly, a proper landing is all about managing energy. If a pilot
touches down with so much energy that the aircraft could lift off again,
that pilot is landing too fast.



--
Peter


























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Anonymous
July 19, 2005 5:06:29 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 08:55:39 -0400, Beech45Whiskey <pjricc@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Capt Bob <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> Dumping the flaps after touchdown minimizes any chance of going back
>> in the air again. It is a good safety practice.
>
>Hmmm... a couple of points to counter this advice:
>
>In a complex aircraft, the risks of a pilot accidentally grabbing the
>landing gear handle rather than the flaps lever during the high workload
>landing roll-out outweigh the safety issues of potentially going back in
>the air.
>
>There are many examples in the NTSB accident reports where pilots have done
>just this. Due either to a faulty gear squat switch or the aircraft
>hitting a bump in the runway and momentarily unloading the gear, the
>aircraft's gear retracted while the aircraft was on the ground.
>
>Here a few examples of this in just the last few years. There are plenty
>more:
>
>http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20040319X00352...
>http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20040319X00347...
>http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20021126X05532...
>
>Here's one during taxi!
>
>http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20040329X00381...
>
>
>Secondly, a proper landing is all about managing energy. If a pilot
>touches down with so much energy that the aircraft could lift off again,
>that pilot is landing too fast.

If you touch down in gusty conditions, you can easily get enough lift
to become airborne again. I will have to remember that about my gear
switch in the C-152, however .... ;) 


Bob
July 19, 2005 7:57:58 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

> >
> >Hmmm... a couple of points to counter this advice:
> >
> >In a complex aircraft, the risks of a pilot accidentally grabbing the
> >landing gear handle rather than the flaps lever during the high workload
> >landing roll-out outweigh the safety issues of potentially going back in
> >the air.
> >
> >There are many examples in the NTSB accident reports where pilots have
done
> >just this. Due either to a faulty gear squat switch or the aircraft
> >hitting a bump in the runway and momentarily unloading the gear, the
> >aircraft's gear retracted while the aircraft was on the ground.
> >
> >Here a few examples of this in just the last few years. There are plenty
> >more:
> >
> >http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20040319X00352...
> >http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20040319X00347...
> >http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20021126X05532...
> >
> >Here's one during taxi!
> >
> >http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20040329X00381...
> >
> >
> >Secondly, a proper landing is all about managing energy. If a pilot
> >touches down with so much energy that the aircraft could lift off again,
> >that pilot is landing too fast.
>
> If you touch down in gusty conditions, you can easily get enough lift
> to become airborne again. I will have to remember that about my gear
> switch in the C-152, however .... ;) 
>
>
> Bob



This is getting more and more chicken&egg question. This thread started like
what is difference between C-150 and C-152 and ended up comparing flying
techniques on different types of airplanes.
We are all correct and we are all wrong here. Pilot should fly airplane
according to POH and rules and regulations. Period.
Anonymous
July 19, 2005 7:57:59 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

rookie <enes.handzar@vip.hr.removethis> wrote:

> This is getting more and more chicken&egg question. This thread started like
> what is difference between C-150 and C-152 and ended up comparing flying
> techniques on different types of airplanes.

New to Usenet, are you?

What's happening here is simply an expanded discussion that spawned from
this thread. A totally routine and common occurrence in Usenet and a
technique that often allows the exchange of even more information.

Sure, sometimes a pissing contest results but no one is getting personal in
this thread or claiming their way is the better way, at least from what I
read.

> We are all correct and we are all wrong here. Pilot should fly airplane
> according to POH and rules and regulations. Period.

Fly according to the POH? You mean fly with the skills of a very
experienced test pilot in an aircraft that is brand-new to produce
spectacular results for the marketing department? :-)

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
July 19, 2005 9:23:55 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"Beech45Whiskey" <pjricc@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:17mex48lv6859.dlg@ID-259643.user.individual.net...
> rookie <enes.handzar@vip.hr.removethis> wrote:
>
> > This is getting more and more chicken&egg question. This thread started
like
> > what is difference between C-150 and C-152 and ended up comparing flying
> > techniques on different types of airplanes.
>
> New to Usenet, are you?
>

No, I've been around for 10 years now...

> What's happening here is simply an expanded discussion that spawned from
> this thread. A totally routine and common occurrence in Usenet and a
> technique that often allows the exchange of even more information.
>
> Sure, sometimes a pissing contest results but no one is getting personal
in
> this thread or claiming their way is the better way, at least from what I
> read.
>
I agree it's no personal but could be misleading.

> > We are all correct and we are all wrong here. Pilot should fly airplane
> > according to POH and rules and regulations. Period.
>
> Fly according to the POH? You mean fly with the skills of a very
> experienced test pilot in an aircraft that is brand-new to produce
> spectacular results for the marketing department? :-)
>

So, you are saying POH is useless?


> --
> Peter
>
Enes
Anonymous
July 19, 2005 9:23:56 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

rookie <enes.handzar@vip.hr.removethis> wrote:

> So, you are saying POH is useless?

Of course not. However, disregarding weight and balance and CG for a
moment, the aircraft performance charts and even the checklists contained
within the POH should be considered starting points, not absolutes.

I have learned that the normal procedures checklists contain the minimum
needed for safe flight and typically could be augmented to include other
items deemed by the pilot as important.

Noting the time as one crosses the hold short line onto the runway is one
such item that I haven't seen in a POH normal operating procedures
checklist, yet is very important to computing fuel consumption and
comparing it to planned consumption throughout a longer flight.

Regarding the performance charts, every aviation safety article I have read
about single-engine or light twin aircraft performance advices that a
typical pilot note the takeoff and landing lengths for specific conditions
(temperature, obstacles, runway type, etc) and add 50% to the length as a
safety buffer to cover the difference between a skilled test pilot and the
average pilot, brand new engine versus the health of the current engine,
properly inflated tires versus under-inflated tires, etc.

In other words, the data in those charts are based on very skilled pilots
under optimal conditions with a brand-new aircraft, often times achieved to
satisfy the marketing department.

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 4:01:29 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 12:18:27 -0400, Beech45Whiskey <pjricc@gmail.com>
>
>Noting the time as one crosses the hold short line onto the runway is one
>such item that I haven't seen in a POH normal operating procedures
>checklist

Just in defense - you won't find ATC procedures, VFR or Instrument
Flight Rules procedures or any number of other important information
concerning aviation in POH's. POH's & Flight manuals give you the
latest up-to-date info & performance spec's for flying a SPECIFIC
aircraft. For instance we have had a number of 172's in the club I
belong to. We have (4) now. Some are 160HP, some are 180HP, some have
long range tanks, some have 40 flaps, some have 30, they have Useful
Loads that vary by up to 100lbs or more, depending on equipment etc.
I would recommend the use of POH's.
>
>Regarding the performance charts, every aviation safety article I have read
>about single-engine or light twin aircraft performance advices that a
>typical pilot note the takeoff and landing lengths for specific conditions
>(temperature, obstacles, runway type, etc) and add 50% to the length as a
>safety buffer to cover the difference between a skilled test pilot and the
>average pilot, brand new engine versus the health of the current engine,
>properly inflated tires versus under-inflated tires, etc.
>
>In other words, the data in those charts are based on very skilled pilots
>under optimal conditions with a brand-new aircraft, often times achieved to
>satisfy the marketing department.

Yes, that's smart. But you need to start someplace - & that's the POH.
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 1:26:42 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"rookie" <enes.handzar@vip.hr.removethis> wrote in message
news:D bj00f$feg$1@news1.xnet.hr...
<snip>
> This is getting more and more chicken&egg question. This thread started
like
> what is difference between C-150 and C-152 and ended up comparing flying
> techniques on different types of airplanes.
> We are all correct and we are all wrong here. Pilot should fly airplane
> according to POH and rules and regulations. Period.

What do you do if the airplane you're flying doesn't have a POH?

I've been in this situation before, and the group that owned the
airplane probably didn't do the best thing, but we just sorta "winged it" --
using generally accepted practices about using the gear and flaps, cowl
flaps, RPM and manifold pressure, etc. Several of us went out and did some
stalls, then made placards showing our test results. We finally came up
with proper approach speeds etc., but like I said above -- this might not
have been the best thing to do.

So let me ask again -- what do you do if the airplane you're flying
doesn't have a POH? I'm sure not going to let an airplane sit and rot on
the ramp because it doesn't have a book. Period.

Earl

--
Earl Needham
Clovis, New Mexico USA
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 6:00:00 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

Earl Needham <munged@3lefties.com> wrote:

> I'm sure not going to let an airplane sit and rot on
> the ramp because it doesn't have a book. Period.

Showing some signs of an anti-authority personality trait there, Earl. :) 

Actually, from what I understand there was a year before which aircraft did
not have a POH as we all know it now. The "certified" aircraft manual
could have been a small book that can be purchased anywhere, along with an
official weight and balance sheet for your particular aircraft.

If the aircraft make/model were certified in the US, then the type
certificate would specify whether the aircraft manual is required on board
the aircraft during part 91 operations.

You can look up the type certificate data sheet for the aircraft in
question here:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?K27F158D8

Just out of curiosity, what year, make, and model is the aircraft?

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 6:03:47 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

Beech45Whiskey <pjricc@gmail.com> wrote:

> If the aircraft make/model were certified in the US, then the type
> certificate would specify whether the aircraft manual is required on board
> the aircraft during part 91 operations.

BTW, here is a type certificate date sheet for the Cessna 172, all models
through S are included. Note, this is a PDF file and also note the mention
of a POH requirement at the bottom of the sheet:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?P1B32577B

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 9:32:12 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 09:26:42 -0600, "Earl Needham"
<munged@3lefties.com> wrote:

> What do you do if the airplane you're flying doesn't have a POH?
>
> I've been in this situation before, and the group that owned the
>airplane probably didn't do the best thing, but we just sorta "winged it" --
>using generally accepted practices about using the gear and flaps, cowl
>flaps, RPM and manifold pressure, etc. Several of us went out and did some
>stalls, then made placards showing our test results. We finally came up
>with proper approach speeds etc., but like I said above -- this might not
>have been the best thing to do.
>
> So let me ask again -- what do you do if the airplane you're flying
>doesn't have a POH? I'm sure not going to let an airplane sit and rot on
>the ramp because it doesn't have a book. Period.
>
> Earl

If any aircraft does not meet airworthiness standards, then it is
supposed to "sit on the ramp and rot". Certain documents (ARROW, or
now days AROW) are required to be on board to meet airworthiness
standards. It is up to the PIC to make certain they are abord &
current. The "O" in AROW stands for Operating Manual (the others are
Airworthiness Certificate, Registration & Weight & Balance). I
suppose there may be some vintage airplanes, as well as other special
airplanes that may not have or be required to have a Flight Manual,
but that would be unusual. If there ever was one, and the Flight
Manual (POH) is not in the plane, and the FAA finds out, thru a ramp
check or an incident or worse, the FAA could take action against your
Certificate:

FAR Sec. 91.9

Civil aircraft flight manual, marking, and placard requirements.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, no person may
operate a civil aircraft without complying with the operating
limitations specified in the approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight
Manual, markings, and placards, or as otherwise prescribed by the
certificating authority of the country of registry.
(b) No person may operate a U.S.-registered civil aircraft--
(1) For which an Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual is required by
Sec. 21.5 of this chapter unless there is available in the aircraft a
current, approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual or the manual
provided for in Sec. 121.141(b); and
(2) For which an Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual is not required
by Sec. 21.5 of this chapter, unless there is available in the
aircraft a current approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual,
approved manual material, markings, and placards, or any combination
thereof.
July 20, 2005 11:32:12 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"Earl Needham" <munged@3lefties.com> wrote in message
news:11dsr9im5hbicd1@corp.supernews.com...
>
> What do you do if the airplane you're flying doesn't have a POH?
>
> I've been in this situation before, and the group that owned the
> airplane probably didn't do the best thing, but we just sorta "winged
it" --
> using generally accepted practices about using the gear and flaps, cowl
> flaps, RPM and manifold pressure, etc. Several of us went out and did
some
> stalls, then made placards showing our test results. We finally came up
> with proper approach speeds etc., but like I said above -- this might not
> have been the best thing to do.
>
> So let me ask again -- what do you do if the airplane you're flying
> doesn't have a POH? I'm sure not going to let an airplane sit and rot on
> the ramp because it doesn't have a book. Period.
>
> Earl
>
> --
> Earl Needham
> Clovis, New Mexico USA
>
>

You can order POH really cheap from manufacturer by S/N. You can get
airplane weighted for CG.
Not a reason for a rotten aircraft.
Anonymous
July 21, 2005 3:14:53 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 09:26:42 -0600, "Earl Needham"
<munged@3lefties.com> wrote:

>"rookie" <enes.handzar@vip.hr.removethis> wrote in message
>news:D bj00f$feg$1@news1.xnet.hr...
><snip>
>> This is getting more and more chicken&egg question. This thread started
>like
>> what is difference between C-150 and C-152 and ended up comparing flying
>> techniques on different types of airplanes.
>> We are all correct and we are all wrong here. Pilot should fly airplane
>> according to POH and rules and regulations. Period.
>
> What do you do if the airplane you're flying doesn't have a POH?
>
> I've been in this situation before, and the group that owned the
>airplane probably didn't do the best thing, but we just sorta "winged it" --
>using generally accepted practices about using the gear and flaps, cowl
>flaps, RPM and manifold pressure, etc. Several of us went out and did some
>stalls, then made placards showing our test results. We finally came up
>with proper approach speeds etc., but like I said above -- this might not
>have been the best thing to do.
>
> So let me ask again -- what do you do if the airplane you're flying
>doesn't have a POH? I'm sure not going to let an airplane sit and rot on
>the ramp because it doesn't have a book. Period.
>
> Earl

You just sort of "winged it??"""


Cheez,,,,,

Bob
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 12:59:26 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"Beech45Whiskey" <pjricc@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1hxw7wni3d81n.dlg@ID-259643.user.individual.net...
<snip>
> Just out of curiosity, what year, make, and model is the aircraft?

Gee, it was probably 15+ years ago, but it was a Piper Commanche. One
of the "long wing" ones, I think it was probably from around 1961.

Didn't even have toe brakes, the only brakes were operated by a lever
under the throttle quadrant!

Earl
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 1:00:43 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"Capt Bob" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:gmmtd1hgtn2iqsnl5apgmls7sth67vcgov@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 09:26:42 -0600, "Earl Needham"
> <munged@3lefties.com> wrote:
<snip >
> > I've been in this situation before, and the group that owned the
> >airplane probably didn't do the best thing, but we just sorta "winged
it" --
<snip>
> You just sort of "winged it??"""
>
>
> Cheez,,,,,

Uh -- oops? I know I didn't MEAN to do that...<G>

Earl

--
Earl Needham
Clovis, New Mexico USA
!