Flight simulator software for Cessna 172 question

This forum has been developed to discuss flight instruction/University and College programs.

Moderators: lilfssister, North Shore, ahramin, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, Right Seat Captain

User avatar
Shiny Side Up
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5335
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:02 pm
Location: Group W bench

Re: Flight simulator software for Cessna 172 question

Post by Shiny Side Up »

I got nothing against flying a biplane in cloud, it just seems like a misuse of a biplane. Who's crazy to be flying open cockpit IFR? Not to say you can't if you want to, but it just seems off.

Was just reading an article about the new Waco, seemed bizarre how what is a work of art in steel tubing and fabric, focused on its IFR capability.
---------- ADS -----------
  
We can't stop here! This is BAT country!

User avatar
Colonel Sanders
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7512
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:17 pm
Location: Over Macho Grande

Re: Flight simulator software for Cessna 172 question

Post by Colonel Sanders »

Yes - all-weather capability in an open
cockpit biplane. That's what everyone
wants, so they can takeoff and land in
the pouring rain.
---------- ADS -----------
  

CpnCrunch
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2999
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:38 am

Re: Flight simulator software for Cessna 172 question

Post by CpnCrunch »

He's talking about VFR in cloud, not IFR LOL. Anyway let's not go down that tribunal rabbit hole twice in the one week.

I might possibly have brushed the edges of a few clouds in VFR myself in the past for fun, but at least I didn't have spectators at the time.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Mark Rose
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 57
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2014 2:03 pm
Location: CYTZ

Re: Flight simulator software for Cessna 172 question

Post by Mark Rose »

Colonel Sanders wrote: But, wait. You probably want insurance, right?
In Canada, the insurance companies are the
gatekeepers in this respect. I know a guy, bought
a Mooney, had to get FIFTY hours of dual
on it, to get insurance, which is far beyond anything
the FAA requires.
That's nuts! Is because the wings are low? Aren't they all slow tricycles just like a 172? Are they really that different to fly?
Same thing for tailwheel.
Another reason for doing my PPL in one. Hopefully that will count for something with the insurance companies.
So, don't be fooled into thinking that extra training
isn't required in Canada, to fly something sporty.

Forcing people to get training (we do it indirectly in
Canada) isn't the problem.

Competent instruction is. What instructor at your
field is competent to check you out in a Pitts, or
a Luscombe, or Stearman, or Harvard, or Bonanza,
or Comanche, or Mooney?

How about a twin Comanche? Apache? Aztec?
C310? Baron? C421? Beech 18? Twin Bonanza?

That's the problem.

A local guy, bought a Skybolt. Insurance wanted
an instructor with time on type. How many instructors
at your airport have time on type on a Skybolt?
Or a Great Lakes? Or a Hatz? Or a Waco? What
model of Waco? How about a Piaggio Royal Gull?
I've never even heard of many of those. At what point do you have enough time on varied types that the insurance companies don't care?
Incredibly, most pilots have no interest whatsoever
in learning to fly the plethora of certified and homebuilt
types out there, which mystifies me.

All they want to fly are plastic airplanes, with a nosewheel
and a glass panel. Is that really flying? Why not save
your money and just stay in your basement and play
with Microsoft flight sim?

I should add that a plastic airplane with a tailwheel is a
horse of an entirely different colour:
I'm still thinking of buying a plastic, glass panel, tailwheel. But after I learn the basics. Just like how I want to master NDB approaches before I do my first ILS or GPS. It just makes sense to me to do it that way.

What makes a plastic tailwheel so much different? Just that it's a tailwheel?
---------- ADS -----------
  

Mark Rose
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 57
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2014 2:03 pm
Location: CYTZ

Re: Flight simulator software for Cessna 172 question

Post by Mark Rose »

Shiny Side Up wrote:The thing I hate are things that are technically "serviceable" but compared to certified aircraft, are terribly bad ideas. Usually switches, valves and other things that are in bad places, poorly accessible and other such things. See John Denver.

The fad these days of course is to squeeze a few yards of glass into these panels too, since that's where homebuilders usually place a paramount concern for "safety". Of course this often displaces stuff like throttles and mag switches, on top of the rats nest of wires for PCAS and additional layer of GPS "safety". Makes a telephone pole in Mumbai look tidy.
What are your thoughts on kit-built planes where everything but the panel is the same as the certified version?

I laughed aloud at your Mumbai telephone analogy.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Colonel Sanders
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7512
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:17 pm
Location: Over Macho Grande

Re: Flight simulator software for Cessna 172 question

Post by Colonel Sanders »

50 hrs dual was for the retractable gear Mooney.

Which I can kind of understand. Pilots often
forget to lower the gear. Even ones with ATPL's.

Insurance companies love me. I've never had
any trouble getting approved as PIC on anything,
and I fly some pretty weird stuff.

re: plastic tailwheel ... I was bowing down to the
composite unlimited-category aerobatic monoplanes,
which are all tailwheel, I might add. For people at
that skill level, tailwheel is not a problem.

Regardless of construction, a tailwheel aircraft will
keep you honest. It is unforgiving, and will teach
you to be a much better pilot. You can land a nosewheel
aircraft in a crab, and leave your feet flat on the floor,
but a tailwheel aircraft will not forgive that.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Mark Rose
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 57
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2014 2:03 pm
Location: CYTZ

Re: Flight simulator software for Cessna 172 question

Post by Mark Rose »

Colonel Sanders wrote:50 hrs dual was for the retractable gear Mooney.

Which I can kind of understand. Pilots often
forget to lower the gear. Even ones with ATPL's.
Ahh, that makes more sense. Was that 50 hours with no retractable experience? Still, seems a bit ridiculous to me.
re: plastic tailwheel ... I was bowing down to the
composite unlimited-category aerobatic monoplanes,
which are all tailwheel, I might add. For people at
that skill level, tailwheel is not a problem.
Gotcha. Something like a Swift S1? Though that doesn't have an engine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYQrJKcA4Js (Luca Bertossio pushes -4.25g at the 2 minute mark)

Regardless of construction, a tailwheel aircraft will
keep you honest. It is unforgiving, and will teach
you to be a much better pilot. You can land a nosewheel
aircraft in a crab, and leave your feet flat on the floor,
but a tailwheel aircraft will not forgive that.
Will it forgive you once you're facing backwards in the grass after landing? :smile:
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Shiny Side Up
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5335
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:02 pm
Location: Group W bench

Re: Flight simulator software for Cessna 172 question

Post by Shiny Side Up »

Mark Rose wrote: What are your thoughts on kit-built planes where everything but the panel is the same as the certified version?
I really don't care what's in the panel, its just that homebuilders I find tend to overdo things. I mean how much IFR capability do you need in a thing that's got no de-ice? Seems silly. Flew an airplane that had 3 panel mount GPSs in it, and that's not including all the suction cups for iPads and the yoke mount for another. I guess if you sink that kind of money you got to make a show of using it, but I threw the yoke mount into the back with the suction cups, cleaned up the window and flew the damn thing. Now that was a Cessna 340, but I've seen similar things stuffed into RVs until there's hardly enough room for people, and definitely a hazard since now you can't see important stuff like fuel selectors or fuel guages. I flew another with an overzealous triple redundant AoA indication replete with bitchin betty who was as afraid of stalling as the owner, since she started the bitching way before the poor thing was anywhere close to stalling. Consequently it leads (I feel) a lot of more-builders-than-pilots to land way long and fast and wear out a lot of tires and brakes. There's two things they're terrified of: Flying into clouds and stalling, and there's a lot of evidence of that in any magazine that covers the subject. There must be a hundred different stall-warning-AoA-flashing-light-gizmos for sale.
Ahh, that makes more sense. Was that 50 hours with no retractable experience? Still, seems a bit ridiculous to me.
You have to remember insurance people aren't pilots, they regulate by statistics. They also want to cover their asses as much as they think they can, so tend to overdo things rather than not. I suspect that if enough people are willing to undergo 50 hour dual gatekeeping, and the company still thinks they're paying out too much, they'll just increase the time. Insurance companies love hours, they really have no concept of testing processes or really any sort of logic. It sometimes is worth it to go through the trouble of lengthy explanations for them, like how yes, a 185 and a 180 are different models, but they are similar enough for flying purposes.
---------- ADS -----------
  
We can't stop here! This is BAT country!

CpnCrunch
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2999
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:38 am

Re: Flight simulator software for Cessna 172 question

Post by CpnCrunch »

Colonel Sanders wrote: Regardless of construction, a tailwheel aircraft will
keep you honest. It is unforgiving, and will teach
you to be a much better pilot. You can land a nosewheel
aircraft in a crab, and leave your feet flat on the floor,
but a tailwheel aircraft will not forgive that.
Out of curiosity, what is the correct technique for landing when the crosswind is too strong to track the centreline with sideslip alone? Should you use some crab, kick it out at the last moment, and put the thing on the ground before the wind blows you off the runway?

Also, how do ercoupes cope with landing in a wings-level crab in a crosswind (which is apparently the recommended/only technique)?
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Colonel Sanders
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7512
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:17 pm
Location: Over Macho Grande

Re: Flight simulator software for Cessna 172 question

Post by Colonel Sanders »

landing when the crosswind is too strong to track the centreline with sideslip alone?
If you have a high-wing, little airplane, then
it is not very likely that you will scrape a wingtip
during a crosswind landing with a sideslip to
align the aircraft.

Eric and I were bored one day, with the windsock
straight out across the runway. Ottawa was calling
15 gusting 20 knots, so we did this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=US9je8STwjo

What you describe is more of a problem with
low-wing aircraft which have stuff hanging down
which limits the angle of bank which may be used
in the slip.

What I do in that situation is land on the upwind
main first, with as much slip as I safely can, and
crab as required, then straighten out and touch
the downwind main on.

This sounds more complicated than it really is.
You can probably find some youtube videos
that show this.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Shiny Side Up
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5335
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:02 pm
Location: Group W bench

Re: Flight simulator software for Cessna 172 question

Post by Shiny Side Up »

Also, how do ercoupes cope with landing in a wings-level crab in a crosswind (which is apparently the recommended/only technique)?
They have landing gear for the purpose, with a trailing link design that can pivot to accomodate a crooked landing. Imagine like if you took the nose wheel design off of a RV, a Diamond or a Grumman and made those into the main gear.

Other aircraft can be fitted like that as well, the Cessna 180, 185 and 190 could, so can some of the Musketeers.

Its just plain wierd to do, but it does work.
---------- ADS -----------
  
We can't stop here! This is BAT country!

pelmet
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4489
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Flight simulator software for Cessna 172 question

Post by pelmet »

Colonel Sanders wrote:But, wait. You probably want insurance, right?
In Canada, the insurance companies are the
gatekeepers in this respect. I know a guy, bought
a Mooney, had to get FIFTY hours of dual
on it, to get insurance, which is far beyond anything
the FAA requires.
Colonel Sanders wrote:50 hrs dual was for the retractable gear Mooney.

Which I can kind of understand. Pilots often
forget to lower the gear. Even ones with ATPL's.
Is this the same guy? If so, 50 hours was not enough. Maybe he should have done circuits with the gear down. I wonder if some day the insurance will demand that the gear be welded down if people want insurance.

A14O0154: The privately owned Mooney 20F (C-GLDK) was performing circuits at the Smiths Falls airport (CYSH). During final approach, the landing gear was not lowered and the aircraft impacted the runway with the landing gear retracted. The aircraft slid to a stop on the runway and received substantial damage to the propeller, flaps and underside of fuselage. The pilot exited the aircraft with no reported injuries. There was no fire or fuel leakage.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Shiny Side Up
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5335
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:02 pm
Location: Group W bench

Re: Flight simulator software for Cessna 172 question

Post by Shiny Side Up »

Apparently Mooneys are landed with the wheels up so often there's an STC for a mod that allows you to skid on the belly. Wrecks the prop and engine of course, but saves your skin. :|
---------- ADS -----------
  
We can't stop here! This is BAT country!

Post Reply

Return to “Flight Training”