Discussion:
Three take offs = three landings at Newton MS and Madison MS - Video
(too old to reply)
A Lieberman
2009-11-21 15:24:43 UTC
Permalink
In this video in 3 minutes you will have endured 3 takes offs and 3
landings.



Short field relative to pilot experiences I guess. Figured to go to
Newton and work on a 3000 runway with large trees on the arrival end.
Only thing I can think that triggered the stall horn on short final
for the first approach was windshear which was easily fixed by
dropping the nose.
WingFlaps
2009-11-22 20:02:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by A Lieberman
In this video in 3 minutes you will have endured 3 takes offs and 3
landings.
http://youtu.be/XCYjZ-XkPTk
Short field relative to pilot experiences I guess.  Figured to go to
Newton and work on a 3000 runway with large trees on the arrival end.
Only thing I can think that triggered the stall horn on short final
for the first approach was windshear which was easily fixed by
dropping the nose.
Looks more like a gliding approach really. Try practicing using the
backside of the power curve (use an instructor if you are not
comfortable with this). It is also a good exercise to pick a point on
the runway by which you are stopped (imagine if there were a fence
there). Don't lock the wheels but use maximum braking -there should be
wheel squeal. I know it wears out rubber faster but its all a part of
doing it properly/well. In good conditions on seal you should easily
meet the POH short field numbers.

Cheers
A Lieberman
2009-11-23 16:26:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by WingFlaps
Don't lock the wheels but use maximum braking -there should be
wheel squeal. I know it wears out rubber faster but its all a part of
doing it properly/well. In good conditions on seal you should easily
meet the POH short field numbers.
If the wheels are squealing, good chance you have locked your brake(s)
and run a high risk of wheel barrowing. I probably had a good 2500
foot of runway left in this video so while heavy braking was applied,
I really didn't need to.
Mark Hansen
2009-11-23 16:52:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by A Lieberman
Post by WingFlaps
Don't lock the wheels but use maximum braking -there should be
wheel squeal. I know it wears out rubber faster but its all a part of
doing it properly/well. In good conditions on seal you should easily
meet the POH short field numbers.
If the wheels are squealing, good chance you have locked your brake(s)
and run a high risk of wheel barrowing. I probably had a good 2500
foot of runway left in this video so while heavy braking was applied,
I really didn't need to.
How does heavy braking run the risk of wheelbarrowing?
A Lieberman
2009-11-23 21:08:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Hansen
Post by A Lieberman
Post by WingFlaps
Don't lock the wheels but use maximum braking -there should be
wheel squeal. I know it wears out rubber faster but its all a part of
doing it properly/well. In good conditions on seal you should easily
meet the POH short field numbers.
If the wheels are squealing, good chance you have locked your brake(s)
and run a high risk of wheel barrowing.  I probably had a good 2500
foot of runway left in this video so while heavy braking was applied,
I really didn't need to.
How does heavy braking run the risk of wheelbarrowing?
Heavy braking doesn't, but squealing wheels and locked brakes I would
think would heighten the risk for wheelbarrowing.
Mark Hansen
2009-11-23 21:31:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by A Lieberman
Post by Mark Hansen
Post by A Lieberman
Post by WingFlaps
Don't lock the wheels but use maximum braking -there should be
wheel squeal. I know it wears out rubber faster but its all a part of
doing it properly/well. In good conditions on seal you should easily
meet the POH short field numbers.
If the wheels are squealing, good chance you have locked your brake(s)
and run a high risk of wheel barrowing. I probably had a good 2500
foot of runway left in this video so while heavy braking was applied,
I really didn't need to.
How does heavy braking run the risk of wheelbarrowing?
Heavy braking doesn't, but squealing wheels and locked brakes I would
think would heighten the risk for wheelbarrowing.
How?
A Lieberman
2009-11-23 23:08:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by A Lieberman
Post by Mark Hansen
Post by A Lieberman
Post by WingFlaps
Don't lock the wheels but use maximum braking -there should be
wheel squeal. I know it wears out rubber faster but its all a part of
doing it properly/well. In good conditions on seal you should easily
meet the POH short field numbers.
If the wheels are squealing, good chance you have locked your brake(s)
and run a high risk of wheel barrowing.  I probably had a good 2500
foot of runway left in this video so while heavy braking was applied,
I really didn't need to.
How does heavy braking run the risk of wheelbarrowing?
Heavy braking doesn't, but squealing wheels and locked brakes I would
think would heighten the risk for wheelbarrowing.
How?
If you are locking your wheels and squealing your tires to come to a
stop, you are too hot and shouldn't even be on the ground. Ground
speed is too high and that's what I understand to cause
wheelbarrowing.

I don't know about you, but I have never had the need to lock brakes
or squeal tires for any landing. If I am that long down the runway
and having any doubt I can't make it stopped before the end comes up I
am going around.
A Lieberman
2009-11-24 02:56:08 UTC
Permalink
Having weight on the nose wheel and not on the main wheels causes
wheelbarrowing. Speed can be a factor here, but it's not the
determining factor.
Without high speed taxiing or landing roll out, you won't
wheelbarrow. What is the determining factor? Quite obvious you won't
wheelbarrow until the nose comes down, but you won't be hitting brakes
while on the mains either.
They are different topics. I don't understand why you would draw
a conclusion the way you have. I felt it was important to point
that out.
I think my point was stated earlier "Ground speed is too high and
that's what I understand to cause wheelbarrowing"

While I do agree, braking itself, skidding isn't wheel barrowing and
yes, you are right won't cause wheelbarrowing itself.but if you are
already landing hot, as soon as your nose wheel touches before you
even touch your brakes you put yourself in a wheelbarrowing
situation.
Maximum braking is the point just before the tires break loose from
the landing surface. Of course, there is a gray area between solid
contact and skidding - in this area you'll get squealing.
Only time I ever hear anything from the tires is the chirp on
landing. If I hear anything on rollout, then there has to be a tire
or wheel locked, would you not agree? Maybe type of runway surface
(grooved) I have never landed on may cause what you talk about this
squealing, but I have never heard it on any hard braking I have done.
(maybe I never hit that threshold, dunno so I won't rule it out)
Maximum braking is needed in some circumstances, such as true short-
field landings. Some time with a qualified instructor can teach you
the proper techniques.
Absolutely agree but a lot of braking can be reduced if you planted
early on the runway in the first place. Again, short field is defined
in my eyes by pilots experience, not necessarily 3000 feet or less..
                                   If I am that long down the runway
and having any doubt I can't make it stopped before the end comes up I
am going around.
Well, that's fine. However, if you're ever forced to land on a short
runway, you need to be able to get the plane stopped. You may not
always have the luxury of a long runway or the ability to go around.
Short of an emergency, you shouldn't be put (forced as you say) in
this position with proper flight planning :-) and even then, if I have
a nice wide open farm field or off field landing site vs a short field
airport, I will elect the field if I felt the field was beyond my
capabilities of a safe outcome.. After all it's an emergency (I am
being forced) and all I hope to do is deliver the plane to the
insurance company.
Mark Hansen
2009-11-24 04:33:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by A Lieberman
Having weight on the nose wheel and not on the main wheels causes
wheelbarrowing. Speed can be a factor here, but it's not the
determining factor.
Without high speed taxiing or landing roll out, you won't
wheelbarrow. What is the determining factor? Quite obvious you won't
wheelbarrow until the nose comes down, but you won't be hitting brakes
while on the mains either.
They are different topics. I don't understand why you would draw
a conclusion the way you have. I felt it was important to point
that out.
I think my point was stated earlier "Ground speed is too high and
that's what I understand to cause wheelbarrowing"
No. You said locking the wheels up causes wheelbarrowing.
Post by A Lieberman
While I do agree, braking itself, skidding isn't wheel barrowing and
yes, you are right won't cause wheelbarrowing itself.but if you are
already landing hot, as soon as your nose wheel touches before you
even touch your brakes you put yourself in a wheelbarrowing
situation.
You said locking the wheels. You don't need to be landing hot to
lock the wheels. You just need excessive brake pressure. Are you
not able to see that?
Post by A Lieberman
Maximum braking is the point just before the tires break loose from
the landing surface. Of course, there is a gray area between solid
contact and skidding - in this area you'll get squealing.
Only time I ever hear anything from the tires is the chirp on
landing. If I hear anything on rollout, then there has to be a tire
or wheel locked, would you not agree?
Of course not. Re-read my post.
Post by A Lieberman
Maybe type of runway surface
(grooved) I have never landed on may cause what you talk about this
squealing, but I have never heard it on any hard braking I have done.
(maybe I never hit that threshold, dunno so I won't rule it out)
Perhaps some more training would help you here.
Post by A Lieberman
Maximum braking is needed in some circumstances, such as true short-
field landings. Some time with a qualified instructor can teach you
the proper techniques.
Absolutely agree but a lot of braking can be reduced if you planted
early on the runway in the first place. Again, short field is defined
in my eyes by pilots experience, not necessarily 3000 feet or less..
Since you're reciprocating, I'll assume you've realized your mistake,
and I'll drop this one.

Best Regards,
Mark Hansen
2009-11-24 01:20:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by A Lieberman
Post by A Lieberman
Post by Mark Hansen
Post by A Lieberman
Post by WingFlaps
Don't lock the wheels but use maximum braking -there should be
wheel squeal. I know it wears out rubber faster but its all a part of
doing it properly/well. In good conditions on seal you should easily
meet the POH short field numbers.
If the wheels are squealing, good chance you have locked your brake(s)
and run a high risk of wheel barrowing. I probably had a good 2500
foot of runway left in this video so while heavy braking was applied,
I really didn't need to.
How does heavy braking run the risk of wheelbarrowing?
Heavy braking doesn't, but squealing wheels and locked brakes I would
think would heighten the risk for wheelbarrowing.
How?
If you are locking your wheels and squealing your tires to come to a
stop, you are too hot and shouldn't even be on the ground. Ground
speed is too high and that's what I understand to cause
wheelbarrowing.
Having weight on the nose wheel and not on the main wheels causes
wheelbarrowing. Speed can be a factor here, but it's not the
determining factor.

Locking up the main wheels does nothing to induce wheelbarrowing.

Skidding is the result of over-aggressive brake use, regardless of
the speed of the airplane (as long as it is moving, of course).

They are different topics. I don't understand why you would draw
a conclusion the way you have. I felt it was important to point
that out.
Post by A Lieberman
I don't know about you, but I have never had the need to lock brakes
or squeal tires for any landing.
Maximum braking is the point just before the tires break loose from
the landing surface. Of course, there is a gray area between solid
contact and skidding - in this area you'll get squealing.

Maximum braking is needed in some circumstances, such as true short-
field landings. Some time with a qualified instructor can teach you
the proper techniques.
Post by A Lieberman
If I am that long down the runway
and having any doubt I can't make it stopped before the end comes up I
am going around.
Well, that's fine. However, if you're ever forced to land on a short
runway, you need to be able to get the plane stopped. You may not
always have the luxury of a long runway or the ability to go around.

If you practice for this (isn't short-field landings in the PTS for
PP-ASEL?) you'll be better prepared when it comes up.
WingFlaps
2009-11-24 10:18:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by A Lieberman
Post by A Lieberman
Post by Mark Hansen
Post by A Lieberman
Post by WingFlaps
Don't lock the wheels but use maximum braking -there should be
wheel squeal. I know it wears out rubber faster but its all a part of
doing it properly/well. In good conditions on seal you should easily
meet the POH short field numbers.
If the wheels are squealing, good chance you have locked your brake(s)
and run a high risk of wheel barrowing.  I probably had a good 2500
foot of runway left in this video so while heavy braking was applied,
I really didn't need to.
How does heavy braking run the risk of wheelbarrowing?
Heavy braking doesn't, but squealing wheels and locked brakes I would
think would heighten the risk for wheelbarrowing.
How?
If you are locking your wheels and squealing your tires to come to a
stop, you are too hot and shouldn't even be on the ground.  Ground
speed is too high and that's what I understand to cause
wheelbarrowing.
I don't know about you, but I have never had the need to lock brakes
or squeal tires for any landing.  If I am that long down the runway
and having any doubt I can't make it stopped before the end comes up I
am going around.
I think you've missed the point, you are doing a real short field -
there may be no go around available. The exercise is to get the plane
down and stopped in minimum distance (think about a MUCH shorter strip
what's the minimum in the POH -a 1000' strip? Now cut that by 30% as a
real training target).

Cheers
WingFlaps
2009-11-24 10:31:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by A Lieberman
Post by A Lieberman
Post by Mark Hansen
Post by A Lieberman
Post by WingFlaps
Don't lock the wheels but use maximum braking -there should be
wheel squeal. I know it wears out rubber faster but its all a part of
doing it properly/well. In good conditions on seal you should easily
meet the POH short field numbers.
If the wheels are squealing, good chance you have locked your brake(s)
and run a high risk of wheel barrowing.  I probably had a good 2500
foot of runway left in this video so while heavy braking was applied,
I really didn't need to.
How does heavy braking run the risk of wheelbarrowing?
Heavy braking doesn't, but squealing wheels and locked brakes I would
think would heighten the risk for wheelbarrowing.
How?
If you are locking your wheels and squealing your tires to come to a
stop, you are too hot and shouldn't even be on the ground.  Ground
speed is too high and that's what I understand to cause
wheelbarrowing.
I don't know about you, but I have never had the need to lock brakes
or squeal tires for any landing.  If I am that long down the runway
and having any doubt I can't make it stopped before the end comes up I
am going around.
I think you've missed the point, you are doing a real short field -
there may be no go around available. The exercise is to get the plane
down and stopped in minimum distance (think about a MUCH shorter strip
what's the minimum in the POH -a 1000' strip? Now cut that by 30% as a
real training target).

Cheers
A Lieberman
2009-11-24 15:48:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by WingFlaps
I think you've missed the point, you are doing a real short field -
there may be no go around available.
No, like I said earlier, if it's that short where I have doubt, I just
don't go there. Preflight prevents this error.

If it's an emergency where I have doubt about a safe outcome on
landing at the airport, then I just may elect an off airport landing.
Mark Hansen
2009-11-24 16:32:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by A Lieberman
Post by WingFlaps
I think you've missed the point, you are doing a real short field -
there may be no go around available.
No, like I said earlier, if it's that short where I have doubt, I just
don't go there. Preflight prevents this error.
If it's an emergency where I have doubt about a safe outcome on
landing at the airport, then I just may elect an off airport landing.
You would rather land off-airport than execute a short-field landing?

You really should take the contents of this thread to a competent
instructor and ask for some help. Seriously.
A Lieberman
2009-11-24 19:18:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Hansen
You would rather land off-airport than execute a short-field landing?
You really should take the contents of this thread to a competent
instructor and ask for some help. Seriously.
NO!!!!

I said if I dont' feel the outcome of a shortfield landing is doable
then yes, I will excecute an off field landing.

Since I am PIC, that's what I stick by. Don't like it, maybe you need
training on what PIC really is..
A Lieberman
2009-11-24 19:50:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by A Lieberman
Post by Mark Hansen
You would rather land off-airport than execute a short-field landing?
You really should take the contents of this thread to a competent
instructor and ask for some help. Seriously.
NO!!!!
I said if I dont' feel the outcome of a shortfield landing is doable
then yes, I will excecute an off field landing.
Since I am PIC, that's what I stick by.  Don't like it, maybe you need
training on what PIC really is..
Let me add, just to be very clear because it appears my message is
being lost on Mark.

Careful flight planning will never put me at a field where I have
doubt about shoehorning my plane in on a short runway. Very simple as
that. Going to M23, I had no doubt about me making a safe approach
and landing with the added benefit to working on short field landings
"in actual conditions" vs using KMBO 4444 foot runway.

If an emergency came up and I was over a field that had a field where
I did not know if the outcome was safe and it was 2500 foot runway
with 50 foot obstacles at the approach end of the runway (short field
for me), I will elect an off field landing without hesitation. If I
am high enough, I will seek an airport that meets my limits for
safety. This is why I am PIC.

At this time, and thus I even went to M23, my short field limits are
3000 and I went to M23 to work on my short field landings. If others
can shoe horn it in on a shorter runway, good for them but short field
is relative to a pilots experience not a set runway length number.
Jim Logajan
2009-11-24 23:00:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by A Lieberman
Careful flight planning will never put me at a field where I have
doubt about shoehorning my plane in on a short runway. Very simple as
that.
That's not only careful planning, in the U.S. a PIC can't legally make a
flight until the PIC has become familiar with both the runway lengths of
the airports of intended use and the aircraft's takeoff and landing
distance requirements. See FAR 91.103, Preflight action.
Jeffrey Bloss
2009-11-25 23:11:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Logajan
Post by A Lieberman
Careful flight planning will never put me at a field where I have
doubt about shoehorning my plane in on a short runway. Very simple as
that.
That's not only careful planning, in the U.S. a PIC can't legally make a
flight until the PIC has become familiar with both the runway lengths of
the airports of intended use and the aircraft's takeoff and landing
distance requirements. See FAR 91.103, Preflight action.
It's still careful planning regardless of the law, you duplicious ass.
Jim Logajan
2009-11-26 22:27:52 UTC
Permalink
Careful flight planning [...]
That's not only careful planning [...]
It's still careful planning [...]
Reading comprehension problem noted. Sorry, not much I can do to help you
overcome it.
Jeffrey Bloss
2009-11-26 23:32:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Logajan
Careful flight planning [...]
That's not only careful planning [...]
It's still careful planning [...]
Reading comprehension problem noted. Sorry, not much I can do to help you
overcome it.
Nice snipping of the truth there, Jimmie, you disingenuous asshole.
Jeffrey Bloss
2009-11-25 23:11:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by A Lieberman
Post by A Lieberman
Post by Mark Hansen
You would rather land off-airport than execute a short-field landing?
You really should take the contents of this thread to a competent
instructor and ask for some help. Seriously.
NO!!!!
I said if I dont' feel the outcome of a shortfield landing is doable
then yes, I will excecute an off field landing.
Since I am PIC, that's what I stick by.  Don't like it, maybe you need
training on what PIC really is..
Let me add, just to be very clear because it appears my message is
being lost on Mark.
Careful flight planning will never put me at a field where I have
doubt about shoehorning my plane in on a short runway. Very simple as
that. Going to M23, I had no doubt about me making a safe approach
and landing with the added benefit to working on short field landings
"in actual conditions" vs using KMBO 4444 foot runway.
If an emergency came up and I was over a field that had a field where
I did not know if the outcome was safe and it was 2500 foot runway
with 50 foot obstacles at the approach end of the runway (short field
for me), I will elect an off field landing without hesitation. If I
am high enough, I will seek an airport that meets my limits for
safety. This is why I am PIC.
At this time, and thus I even went to M23, my short field limits are
3000 and I went to M23 to work on my short field landings. If others
can shoe horn it in on a shorter runway, good for them but short field
is relative to a pilots experience not a set runway length number.
And a myriad of other considerations like what is at the end of the
field (ocean, concrete wall, trees, 10,000 feet of well manicured
grass..), these decisions as all flying are entirely situational.
WingFlaps
2009-11-26 08:21:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by A Lieberman
Post by A Lieberman
Post by Mark Hansen
You would rather land off-airport than execute a short-field landing?
You really should take the contents of this thread to a competent
instructor and ask for some help. Seriously.
NO!!!!
I said if I dont' feel the outcome of a shortfield landing is doable
then yes, I will excecute an off field landing.
Since I am PIC, that's what I stick by.  Don't like it, maybe you need
training on what PIC really is..
Let me add, just to be very clear because it appears my message is
being lost on Mark.
Careful flight planning will never put me at a field where I have
doubt about shoehorning my plane in on a short runway.  Very simple as
that.  Going to M23, I had no doubt about me making a safe approach
and landing with the added benefit to working on short field landings
"in actual conditions" vs using KMBO 4444 foot runway.
If an emergency came up and I was over a field that had a field where
I did not know if the outcome was safe and it was 2500 foot runway
with 50 foot obstacles at the approach end of the runway (short field
for me), I will elect an off field landing without hesitation.   If I
am high enough, I will seek an airport that meets my limits for
safety.  This is why I am PIC.
At this time, and thus I even went to M23, my short field limits are
3000 and I went to M23 to work on my short field landings.  If others
can shoe horn it in on a shorter runway, good for them but short field
is relative to a pilots experience not a set runway length number.
Good lord, are you seriously suggesting 3000' is a short field for a
Sundowner?

Cheers
A Lieberman
2009-11-26 14:26:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by WingFlaps
Post by A Lieberman
At this time, and thus I even went to M23, my short field limits are
3000 and I went to M23 to work on my short field landings.  If others
can shoe horn it in on a shorter runway, good for them but short field
is relative to a pilots experience not a set runway length number.
Good lord, are you seriously suggesting 3000' is a short field for a
Sundowner?
Did you read the above??????????????????

No, I said NOTHING about airplane performance. Read my FIRST
sentence. Read my LAST sentence (more importantly).

When you say crap like the above, you really show your lack of
understanding of flying in the real world.
WingFlaps
2009-11-27 08:19:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by A Lieberman
Post by WingFlaps
Post by A Lieberman
At this time, and thus I even went to M23, my short field limits are
3000 and I went to M23 to work on my short field landings.  If others
can shoe horn it in on a shorter runway, good for them but short field
is relative to a pilots experience not a set runway length number.
Good lord, are you seriously suggesting 3000' is a short field for a
Sundowner?
Did you read the above??????????????????
No, I said NOTHING about airplane performance.  Read my FIRST
sentence.  Read my LAST sentence (more importantly).
When you say crap like the above, you really show your lack of
understanding of flying in the real world.
What is your point, that you can't achieve the short field performance
figures of your plane? Read my advice and you will get to be a better
pilot.

Cheers
A Lieberman
2009-11-27 13:48:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by WingFlaps
Post by A Lieberman
Post by WingFlaps
Post by A Lieberman
At this time, and thus I even went to M23, my short field limits are
3000 and I went to M23 to work on my short field landings.  If others
can shoe horn it in on a shorter runway, good for them but short field
is relative to a pilots experience not a set runway length number.
Good lord, are you seriously suggesting 3000' is a short field for a
Sundowner?
Did you read the above??????????????????
No, I said NOTHING about airplane performance.  Read my FIRST
sentence.  Read my LAST sentence (more importantly).
When you say crap like the above, you really show your lack of
understanding of flying in the real world.
What is your point, that you can't achieve the short field performance
figures of your plane? Read my advice and you will get to be a better
pilot.
Because I don't need to. What difference does it make whether I land
it in 2000 feet or 3000 feet on a 4444 foot runway? What difference
does it make when 99.9 percent of my airports I fly to have 4000 foot
or longer runways on routine cross country flights.

The entire runway in front of me is mine until I clear it. Anybody
behind me will just have to go around if I am not cleared it. I don't
need to be a hero for anybody behind me in preventing a go around.
This privilege is backed by FARS / AIM even at airports with LAHSO
operations where I don't have to accept them.

Most importantly, why should I push the safety envelope THAT I
DETERMINE as PIC, The aircraft manufacturer determines the aircraft
minimums, NOT THE PIC's minimums.

You apparently fail to understand the human nature of flying. As an
example, everybody can swing at a 90 mph fast ball, but not everybody
will hit the ball. Same with landing an airplane. Everybody can try
to shoe horn a plane into the minimums that the manufacturer
determines but not everybody can do it. I determine as PIC what is
safe, not the manufacturer. There is no room for error when you final
approach speed is faster then most highway speeds.

If you think MSFX simulates short field landings, you are sadly
mistaken. You apparently haven't been near a tree in a real plane to
understand exactly what I am talking about. You can't die from coming
up short in MSFX, you can in a real plane. What part of that do you
seem not to understand?
Morgans
2009-11-27 16:45:31 UTC
Permalink
I am beginning to believe that any "discussuin" with flaps50 or wingflaps
are not worth the time. They are here to disrupt, and/or feel like they
belong to something far greater than they ever will be a part of.

I am gooing to do my very best to not respond to them, no matter how tempted
I am. I hope that others come to this conclusion and do the same, before
the group goes dowwn the same path as they did with mxsmaniac.

I am not totally convinced that one or both of the before mentioned trolls
are NOT mxsmaniac. I sure fits the pattern, doesn.t it?

Whatever Allen, but you don't need the approval of these bozos to work on
improving your craft and posting about it here. Keep up the good work and
posts.

Dirty side down!
--
Jim in NC
WingFlaps
2009-11-27 19:46:28 UTC
Permalink
 I am beginning to believe that any "discussuin" with flaps50 or wingflaps
are not worth the time.  They are here to disrupt, and/or feel like they
belong to something far greater than they ever will be a part of.
I am gooing to do my very best to not respond to them, no matter how tempted
I am.  I hope that others come to this conclusion and do the same, before
the group goes dowwn the same path as they did with mxsmaniac.
I am not totally convinced that one or both of the before mentioned trolls
are NOT mxsmaniac.  I sure fits the pattern, doesn.t it?
Whatever Allen,  but you don't need the approval of these bozos to work on
improving your craft and posting about it here. Keep up the good work and
posts.
Good lord, all that was posted was practical advice on how to improve
his landing skills. Somehow you and he turn that into a question of
"approval from bozos"? Stop acting like a child, it's you that is
disrupting the flow of good advice.

Cheers
A Lieberman
2009-11-27 17:33:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Morgans
I am not totally convinced that one or both of the before mentioned trolls
are NOT mxsmaniac.  I sure fits the pattern, doesn.t it?
Dang Jim,

Your thought crossed my mind this morning when I made my reply. Good
minds think alike even if I didn't type out my thoughts :-)))

You are right, pattern is not far from Mx no doubt about it and I will
do my part not to contribute to any more downhill spiral.
WingFlaps
2009-11-27 19:41:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by A Lieberman
Post by Morgans
I am not totally convinced that one or both of the before mentioned trolls
are NOT mxsmaniac.  I sure fits the pattern, doesn.t it?
Dang Jim,
Your thought crossed my mind this morning when I made my reply.  Good
minds think alike even if I didn't type out my thoughts :-)))
You are right, pattern is not far from Mx no doubt about it and I will
do my part not to contribute to any more downhill spiral.
The only downhill spiral was your pitiful display of what you claim
was a short field landing. When it is pointed out you develop a hissy
fit. I suggest you and your buddy Jimboy should put you egos on one
side and learn from other pilots who have greater flying skills -or at
least address why the posted comments are wrong. Otherwise your
bluster and braggardly nature does nothing but amuse the peanut
gallery.

Cheers
Jeffrey Bloss
2009-11-28 02:50:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by WingFlaps
Post by A Lieberman
Post by Morgans
I am not totally convinced that one or both of the before mentioned trolls
are NOT mxsmaniac.  I sure fits the pattern, doesn.t it?
Dang Jim,
Your thought crossed my mind this morning when I made my reply.  Good
minds think alike even if I didn't type out my thoughts :-)))
You are right, pattern is not far from Mx no doubt about it and I will
do my part not to contribute to any more downhill spiral.
The only downhill spiral was your pitiful display of what you claim
was a short field landing. When it is pointed out you develop a hissy
fit. I suggest you and your buddy Jimboy should put you egos on one
side and learn from other pilots who have greater flying skills -or at
least address why the posted comments are wrong. Otherwise your
bluster and braggardly nature does nothing but amuse the peanut
gallery.
If you *really* want info on me then,
http://preview.xrl.in/3vmz
LOL
Mike Ash
2009-11-27 21:19:55 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by WingFlaps
Post by A Lieberman
Post by Morgans
I am not totally convinced that one or both of the before mentioned trolls
are NOT mxsmaniac.  I sure fits the pattern, doesn.t it?
Dang Jim,
Your thought crossed my mind this morning when I made my reply.  Good
minds think alike even if I didn't type out my thoughts :-)))
You are right, pattern is not far from Mx no doubt about it and I will
do my part not to contribute to any more downhill spiral.
The only downhill spiral was your pitiful display of what you claim
was a short field landing. When it is pointed out you develop a hissy
fit. I suggest you and your buddy Jimboy should put you egos on one
side and learn from other pilots who have greater flying skills -or at
least address why the posted comments are wrong. Otherwise your
bluster and braggardly nature does nothing but amuse the peanut
gallery.
Everything in this paragraph after the first sentence applies directly
to you. This train of insults aimed at someone for simply posting a
video is completely unwarranted and says nothing good about the ones
posting them. I want more people to share their flying experiences, not
less, but jerks such as yourself are helping to ensure that anyone with
interesting experiences to talk about is going to take them elsewhere.
--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon
WingFlaps
2009-11-28 09:10:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Ash
In article
Post by WingFlaps
Post by A Lieberman
Post by Morgans
I am not totally convinced that one or both of the before mentioned trolls
are NOT mxsmaniac.  I sure fits the pattern, doesn.t it?
Dang Jim,
Your thought crossed my mind this morning when I made my reply.  Good
minds think alike even if I didn't type out my thoughts :-)))
You are right, pattern is not far from Mx no doubt about it and I will
do my part not to contribute to any more downhill spiral.
The only downhill spiral was your pitiful display of what you claim
was a short field landing. When it is pointed out you develop a hissy
fit. I suggest you and your buddy Jimboy should put you egos on one
side and learn from other pilots who have greater flying skills -or at
least address why the posted comments are wrong. Otherwise your
bluster and braggardly nature does nothing but amuse the peanut
gallery.
Everything in this paragraph after the first sentence applies directly
to you. This train of insults aimed at someone for simply posting a
video is completely unwarranted and says nothing good about the ones
posting them. I want more people to share their flying experiences, not
less, but jerks such as yourself are helping to ensure that anyone with
interesting experiences to talk about is going to take them elsewhere.
The train of insults did not start with me, follow the thread. I'd say
you have a point but it should be directed to those that can't take
any critique of their flying -and that is hubris.
Cheers
Jim Logajan
2009-11-27 22:23:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by A Lieberman
Post by Morgans
I am not totally convinced that one or both of the before mentioned
trolls are NOT mxsmaniac.  I sure fits the pattern, doesn.t it?
Dang Jim,
Your thought crossed my mind this morning when I made my reply. Good
minds think alike even if I didn't type out my thoughts :-)))
You are right, pattern is not far from Mx no doubt about it and I will
do my part not to contribute to any more downhill spiral.
The person using the handles "Flaps_50!" and "WingFlaps" (he uses same e-
mail address for both and posts from the same IP address using Google
Groups - so he's hardly hiding anything) is posting from New Zealand.

Mxsmanic posted from France.

While the "flaps" person is strongly opinionated, the amount of hubris he
exudes appears to me to be close to typical for Usenet. Of course your
mileage may vary.
Morgans
2009-11-28 16:53:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Logajan
The person using the handles "Flaps_50!" and "WingFlaps" (he uses same e-
mail address for both and posts from the same IP address using Google
Groups - so he's hardly hiding anything) is posting from New Zealand.
Mxsmanic posted from France.
While the "flaps" person is strongly opinionated, the amount of hubris he
exudes appears to me to be close to typical for Usenet. Of course your
mileage may vary.
Thanks for the heads-up on that one. That they are the same is no surprise.
That it is not Mx only means that there is yet another idiot out there that
only wants to bait people and tear down what we have had here. I still say
he doesn't know a flap from an aileron.

Sad.
--
Jim in NC
Jeffrey Bloss
2009-11-28 21:35:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Logajan
The person using the handles "Flaps_50!" and "WingFlaps" (he uses same e-
mail address for both and posts from the same IP address using Google
Groups - so he's hardly hiding anything) is posting from New Zealand.
Mxsmanic posted from France.
You know, for a techie IT geek, you're dumber than a bucket full of
shite.

WingFlaps
2009-11-27 19:36:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by WingFlaps
Post by A Lieberman
Post by WingFlaps
Post by A Lieberman
At this time, and thus I even went to M23, my short field limits are
3000 and I went to M23 to work on my short field landings.  If others
can shoe horn it in on a shorter runway, good for them but short field
is relative to a pilots experience not a set runway length number.
Good lord, are you seriously suggesting 3000' is a short field for a
Sundowner?
Did you read the above??????????????????
No, I said NOTHING about airplane performance.  Read my FIRST
sentence.  Read my LAST sentence (more importantly).
When you say crap like the above, you really show your lack of
understanding of flying in the real world.
What is your point, that you can't achieve the short field performance
figures of your plane? Read my advice and you will get to be a better
pilot.
Because I don't need to.  What difference does it make whether I land
it in 2000 feet or 3000 feet on a 4444 foot runway?  What difference
does it make when 99.9 percent of my airports I fly to have 4000 foot
or longer runways on routine cross country flights.
The entire runway in front of me is mine until I clear it.  Anybody
behind me will just have to go around if I am not cleared it.  I don't
need to be a hero for anybody behind me in preventing a go around.
This privilege is backed by FARS / AIM even at airports with LAHSO
operations where I don't have to accept them.
Personally I like to exit the runway as soon as possible to facilitate
landing operations but if you want to float/roll past exits it's your
choice -but I wouldn't call it good airmanship.
Most importantly, why should I push the safety envelope THAT I
DETERMINE as PIC, The aircraft manufacturer determines the aircraft
minimums, NOT THE PIC's minimums.
Well you got that right
 I determine as PIC what is
safe, not the manufacturer.
and now you got it wrong.
 There is no room for error when you final
approach speed is faster then most highway speeds.
Yawn. Actually give the learning process I'd say there's quite a bit
of room for error in landing a plane normally. For many aircraft touch
speed is lower than highway speeds. Sound like you are not comfortable
with short landings, OK get a lesson or two.
If you think MSFX simulates short field landings, you are sadly
mistaken.  You apparently haven't been near a tree in a real plane to
understand exactly what I am talking about.  You can't die from coming
up short in MSFX, you can in a real plane.  What part of that do you
seem not to understand?
Don't be silly, is an ad hominem the only way your ego can stand
critique? This is not a good mode of behavior for a pilot. Two real
pilots here have told you you don't *seem* to know how to do a short
field properly. Go take a lesson as its a skill you need to practice
for safety reasons -you can't bank on being able to reach/find 4000'
strips. By the way, MSFX doen't run on a MacBook does it?

Cheers
A Lieberman
2009-11-26 14:36:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by WingFlaps
Post by A Lieberman
At this time, and thus I even went to M23, my short field limits are
3000 and I went to M23 to work on my short field landings.  If others
can shoe horn it in on a shorter runway, good for them but short field
is relative to a pilots experience not a set runway length number.
Good lord, are you seriously suggesting 3000' is a short field for a
Sundowner?
NO! Did you read the above?

Read the first sentence and the last sentence (more importantly). I
made no reference to aircraft performance.

When you say crap like this, it's very clear to me you have not done a
short field landing in real life

(sorry if this double posted under two different user accounts)
Jeffrey Bloss
2009-11-25 23:08:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Hansen
Post by A Lieberman
Post by WingFlaps
I think you've missed the point, you are doing a real short field -
there may be no go around available.
No, like I said earlier, if it's that short where I have doubt, I just
don't go there. Preflight prevents this error.
If it's an emergency where I have doubt about a safe outcome on
landing at the airport, then I just may elect an off airport landing.
You would rather land off-airport than execute a short-field landing?
Doesn't that depend on a shitload of factors including what shape and
obstacles are off-field (or not), pilot experience with SF landings, how
short and a gaziilion other things where an OF landing would make a
hyooooge amount of better sense?
Post by Mark Hansen
You really should take the contents of this thread to a competent
instructor and ask for some help. Seriously.
He would agree with me, why should I?
WingFlaps
2009-11-24 10:10:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by A Lieberman
Post by WingFlaps
Don't lock the wheels but use maximum braking -there should be
wheel squeal. I know it wears out rubber faster but its all a part of
doing it properly/well. In good conditions on seal you should easily
meet the POH short field numbers.
If the wheels are squealing, good chance you have locked your brake(s)
and run a high risk of wheel barrowing.  I probably had a good 2500
foot of runway left in this video so while heavy braking was applied,
I really didn't need to.
No, try it in your car (turn ABS off if you have it). The wheels
really squeal before they lock on seal. A good fast stop has wheel
squeal without locking -just like your wheels squeal when you corner
hard without skidding. (You can't hear this on grass tho so you need
to develop a feel for the brakes). If only your mains are down and the
stall warning is going off hard you can't wheel barrow -the wing can't
lift the plane at a lower AOA.

Cheers
WingFlaps
2009-11-24 10:31:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by A Lieberman
Post by WingFlaps
Don't lock the wheels but use maximum braking -there should be
wheel squeal. I know it wears out rubber faster but its all a part of
doing it properly/well. In good conditions on seal you should easily
meet the POH short field numbers.
If the wheels are squealing, good chance you have locked your brake(s)
and run a high risk of wheel barrowing.  I probably had a good 2500
foot of runway left in this video so while heavy braking was applied,
I really didn't need to.
As I saw it you used about half the 3000' runway... I know you can do
better :-)

Cheers

Since you passed the turn off at a good clip I'd guess you used nearly
half the runway.
A Lieberman
2009-11-24 15:45:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by WingFlaps
As I saw it you used about half the 3000' runway... I know you can do
better :-)
Cheers
Since you passed the turn off at a good clip I'd guess you used nearly
half the runway.
Duhh, you are right, about 1500 which is good enough for me in my
Sundowner. I am not in a cub :-)
Loading...