|
|
Post by olderndirt on Jan 11, 2015 17:05:18 GMT -5
Finally made it into Launumu - after several attempts. Too much groundspeed in FSX. This is delightful scenery with tough landings. Starting down the valley with the Kodoka trail - got Fritz's coordinates punched in the GPS.  Looks a lot better than it was.  Very colorful laundry and a mile high - same as Denver.  On the other side of the strip - must be the mayor's house.  |
|
|
|
Post by pivo11 on Jan 12, 2015 5:54:32 GMT -5
I know what you mean. I have yet to land at one of those strips the first time. And there has yet to a good landing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2015 11:52:44 GMT -5
If by "good" you mean smooth Fritz, forget it. Smooth landings on strips like that are in fact, "bad". You will float too much and use too much runway up (this is true IRL as well). Get low and really slow and drag it in with power. As soon as you hit the threshold, chop the power and plant it on hard. As soon as the wheels touch, get the flaps up ASAP. Not smooth, not pretty, but a hell of a lot more preferable than making a mess off the far end of the runway. If the passengers complain, tell them to take a pack horse in next time  . |
|
|
|
Post by Bushpounder on Jan 12, 2015 12:01:22 GMT -5
That was one thing I liked about the Pipers - manual flaps. You could go from 40 degrees to zero NOW. Cessnas seemed to take forever when you wanted them up NOW.
BP;)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2015 14:08:24 GMT -5
On the "bush" machines (ok, TRUE bush machines - mainly the 185) you had manual flaps. This is one reason I don't like the 206 for serious bush work - electric flaps. The 180/185 were great and the amount of control you had by juggling the flaps via the Johnson bar was great. I used to dump them hard and fast on nasty, windy short lakes, and play with them (up and down) on takeoffs from glassy or short lakes.
|
|
|
|
Post by pivo11 on Jan 12, 2015 18:30:42 GMT -5
If by "good" you mean smooth Fritz, forget it. Smooth landings on strips like that are in fact, "bad". You will float too much and use too much runway up (this is true IRL as well). Get low and really slow and drag it in with power. As soon as you hit the threshold, chop the power and plant it on hard. As soon as the wheels touch, get the flaps up ASAP. Not smooth, not pretty, but a hell of a lot more preferable than making a mess off the far end of the runway. If the passengers complain, tell them to take a pack horse in next time . Okay, thanks. That could be my problem, I guess, since I do seem to use up too much of the runway. |
|
|
|
Post by olderndirt on Jan 12, 2015 21:03:18 GMT -5
FSX gives the illusion of a too fast groundspeed which screws up a short field approach. Glenn has suggested increasing your zoom to at least 1.0 - do it far enough out so that you can remove the panel from your lap. Power is altitude and pitch is speed so work at getting your flaps down and enough power to allow fairly shallow descent at around 60 mph. The student thing was 'if the runway moves up in windshield, you're sinking add power' and vice versa. Use the threshold as your gauge. As you cross the threshold or slightly before, ease off the power and increase the pitch 'til it stalls. Ideally you'll meet your shadow, three point and if you have an extra hand dump the flaps. Brakes are often good especially if you want to stop.
|
|
|
|
Post by pivo11 on Jan 13, 2015 2:51:41 GMT -5
Thanks, Dave. I think I do have my zoom at 1.0. I'll have to check, it's been a while since I fooled around with those settings.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2015 6:27:16 GMT -5
Uhh, where did I suggest increasing the zoom factor?? In fact, I think that's the worst thing you can do. Yes, it will slow things down visually a bit (perceived lower groundspeed) but it also will change your frame of reference and possibly cause you to lose sight of key parts of your instrument panel. It's not going to do squat for getting the airplane on the runway any faster, which I think is the issue here. Personally I'd keep the zoom where you are most comfortable at and used to. That will give you the consistency that will really help when you get into tight situations like short fields.
|
|
|
|
Post by pivo11 on Jan 13, 2015 7:10:21 GMT -5
You get either blamed or praised for lots of things, Glenn. I understand that the correct zoom setting for FSX is 1.0. I do have it set at 1.0, myself, and I remember doing it long ago, after seeing this. www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjbCFNSofpk Frankly, I don't know if it makes a huge difference but the math is convincing. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2015 7:37:47 GMT -5
<LOL> probably blamed more than praised. Yeah, 1 is the best setting and the most realistic. It will help you to judge distances better in the process. I should have included one caveat to my method above - it is highly dangerous. IRL I practiced that technique a lot, but very rarely used it. You're hanging off the prop barely above the stall when doing this. If you are in a gust and it drops suddenly you're probably going to become very intimate with the trees directly under you, very quickly. The other reality is, you have to be able to get back out of the strip again. If you are using such extreme measures to get in, you probably aren't getting back out again as most aircraft take longer to get off the ground than they do to land. I did use this technique IRL with the Beaver a couple of times because it could take off in the same distance it would land in, and the lake was VERY short. In the 185, we had one lake at one place I worked where you could approach over the swamp at the east end of the lake, but you had to go back out the opposite way (departing over the swamp) because the lake was too short to get out of going the other way unless you were very light, and even then it was dicey. So it did come in handy, and I did use it IRL, but again, it's a far more dangerous method than the one Dave suggested. My suggestion would be, use Dave's method first (but I'd use the lowest airspeed you can because you can't afford to float too much). If that doesn't get you in, and this is a B&H flight (so you kind of have to get in if at all possible), then go with mine. Just make sure you can get out again is all. By the by, I wouldn't try this with the 207. Even the 206 is iffy, but do-able. The Super Cub will do this just fine and you can stop on a dime. The Twin Otter can be especially good for this, but start going into Beta as you cross the threshold (in the air) - the FSX and that Twin Otter's engine dynamics are particularly bad so you have to adjust for that. Good luck "Mr. Phelps" . |
|
|
|
Post by olderndirt on Jan 13, 2015 12:12:24 GMT -5
Uhh, where did I suggest increasing the zoom factor?? In fact, I think that's the worst thing you can do. Yes, it will slow things down visually a bit (perceived lower groundspeed) but it also will change your frame of reference and possibly cause you to lose sight of key parts of your instrument panel. You think I just dream this sh*t up? I even programmed my stick button to accomodate this based on your recommendation. Unfortunately it's in the old forum records. Also note I said "do it far enough out so that you can remove the panel from your lap." |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2015 12:44:19 GMT -5
"You think I just dream this sh*t up? "
In this case, I was thinking so.
"Unfortunately it's in the old forum records."
Oh. And that was HOW long ago? And was it in context with short field landings? It might help with perspective, but it won't help with getting the airplane on the ground any faster.
Jeeez.
|
|
|
|
Post by olderndirt on Jan 13, 2015 14:31:05 GMT -5
Well, I think I'm done here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bushpounder on Jan 14, 2015 16:38:16 GMT -5
You can still search at the other site.
BP;)
|
|
.
