Can you elaborate what kind of modern pilots do not comply with PTS?

1. No trim. Most pilots do not know how to handle turns with a tail-heavy plane or one that climbs.
2. Air speed and energy bleed off very quickly, in turns & climbs.
3. How to use power if in a ground loop.
4. Using rudder in turns, top rudder or bottom rudder.
5. Not use to non-differential ailerons.
6. The hunting of the nose.
7. The in-stability of the plane in itself. Always wanting to roll off on a wing.

Just some.

I said, "Most modern pilots"

Sadly, she is very right. I have been scared several times flying in new aircraft with pilots I was not familiar with. Even had one tell me that it was OK to red line the specific airplane we were in because it 'was a strong build'.

-I was never so happy to get out of a plane before.

Are you referring to particular type of airplane I'm little a bit confused here?

What is tail heavy airplane - airplane with CG AFT?
Are you referring to ground loop in a tail dragger?
By using rudder in turn you mean most of the modern pilots unable to perform coordinated turn?
What are non-differential ailerons? What do you mean by hunting of the nose - dutch roll?

What is "in-stability of the plane"? Improper handling of the airplane or dynamically/statically unstable airplane?

By "red line" you are referring to Vne? Right? What kind of pilots you were flying with?

Oh yeah! I was talking about Vne. I was looking to buy the gentleman's aircraft and we were doing an orientation flight. He didn't care about airspeeds or flying by the numbers, it was all by the seat of his pants, and his judgement wasn't stellar. "Want to slow down for landing?" "Just drop the gear, like this." Me, "Isn't Vlo 120kts?" Him, "We are only 40 knots over, the plane can handle it."

To make matters more interesting the runway at his home field was only about 30-35ft wide and alittle over 3,000ft with sand dunes to either side. Obviously I survived, but man, it was an eye openning experience.

The gentleman was a fantastic aircraft builder, but his electrical and piloting skills have much room for improvement.

Let me guess he was a private pilot and probably not instrument rated ?

P.S. I've seen few pilots like that

Now you are just opening up a huge can of worms. There is alot to this story and I am sure you'd all enjoy it (quite the learning experience), I won't go into it here.

During the ferry flight home to Wisconsin from Needles, CA, we had 2 complete electrical failures due to ridiculous things. Almost like how back in the day a used car dealer used a paper clip to keep the A/C connection good. Yes. That stupid. The dumbshit even knew what was wrong when we reported issue to him.

Anyways! He was only a private pilot and while he was 'current' per say, he wasn't legally current. I did a search on him and found he hadn't had a medical or a BFR since '97. ...I flew with him in 2005.

So yeah...not only could I have gone to the FAA with his issues, I also considered going after the aircraft inspector for giving the a/c an airworthiness certificate. The purchase price of the a/c was 82k and since owning it with my father we have put well over 30k into upgrades, repairs, etc. However, in the end it was all worth it and justified. There is no finer plane that is economical and fun to fly as the Lancair.

Are you referring to particular type of airplane I'm little a bit confused here?

1. What is tail heavy airplane - airplane with CG AFT? With a CG to the Aft limit.

2. Are you referring to ground loop in a tail dragger? Yes.

3. By using rudder in turn you mean most of the modern pilots unable to perform coordinated turn? Yes. Watch the ball slip in any plane. In WW-1 plane this is compounded by non-differential ailerons.

4. What are non-differential ailerons? Differential Ailerons.

5. What do you mean by hunting of the nose - dutch roll? Yes one could call it that, in the Dr.1 the dutch roll is mainly do to two factors, non-fin ( flying rudder) and non-dihedral of the short wings.

6. What is "in-stability of the plane"? Improper handling of the airplane or dynamically/statically unstable airplane? The two factors above plus the Aft CG, short coupled fuselage, power/torque, non-rigidness of the structural components, all play into this.

Hahaha that is funny

Thanks for response womenfly2
My bad I misunderstood non differential ailerons thinking about something else instead of adverse yaw.

Anyway as a representative of the modern pilots I can do a lot of things! For example I can ground loop twin engine airplane with tricycle gear at V1 cut I also can take same airplane slip the ball, rise the dead, and fly it absolutely in crooked fashion LOL I'm a bad pilot what can I say

I do know what WF2 is talking about. Both about bad pilots and experiencing what she mentioned personally.

I am amazed at the number of pilots I have met that don't seem to understand the basic concepts of flying. Even some instructors.

Gunloon, I'm right with you about the feeling of flying in this sim. It's the best yet and it does give you the sensation of flight even if just through visuals and audio. I think the slips are the best of any sim, but something doesn't feel quite right about them to me. They are dang close though.
Your posts are too good for you to shut up. Keep at it!

I'm not sure they even teach slips in the flight program at the university here. Not once have I ever seen one of their planes slip to a landing. They always drag these 152s and 172's in with full flaps on what looks like an airliner approach. I don't like dragging it in like that, if your engine conks out on you then you end up in the weeds for no good reason.

Modern-day pilots often have trouble with the quirks of replica WW1 planes, as this F-14 fighter pilot (I believe) who tried a Dr.1:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001213X31016&key=1

See this posting by Baldeagle:

http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/replica-aircraft/20387-fokker-dr1-replica-crash-2.html

"The ORA Triplane that crashed was the one I used to fly, and don't believe everything you read. There is no yaw problem with Triplanes, they're just unstable and sensitive in yaw. The rudder works just like on any other aircraft, you just have to be on it all the time. This wing dipping stuff is nonsense.

There were two problems with CJ "Heater" Heatly flying the Triplane, lack of respect for it, and lack of knowlege on what to do with you feet in an airplane. I've talked to jet pilots who have also flown small aircraft, and they all say that in a modern jet fighter the rudder pedals are basically for steering on the ground. Not so in the Triplane or most vintage aircraft. Also from talking to people who were there, they got the distinct impression that "Heater" thought that because the Triplane was simple, it would be easy to fly (F-14 complicated = hard to fly...?). He was checked out in a Cub and a Great Lakes first, and when asked what he thought about the difference between those and and an F-14, he replied that the old types were "kind of boring". My theory is that the Triplane was within earshot, and thought, "We'll see about that..."

"Heater" took off, didn't control the yaw, went one way, then the other, until the aircraft stalled (wind shear is the excuse of the day, but BS, there was little wind) and started to spin. The telephone wires saved his life, he disappeared going straight down, but caught the wires on one side, which slewed the aircraft around and slowed it down, and collapsed the wings on the other side as it hit, absorbing the force. He walked away from it, not knowing how lucky he was. The aircraft was totally destroyed. The fabric from one side of the rudder is on the wall of my old bedroom in my parent's house."

I typically only fly C172s for my BFR and I typically get a new instructor pilot every time.

I fly the pattern in the C172 so when I turn base I can make it to the runway without power. Depending on the conditions this could mean I'll have to slip the airplane if I want to land on the numbers. During my last BFR the instructor asked me not to slip to plane aggressively and preferably not at all. He said he doesn't feel comfortable putting those kind of forces on such an old airframe with so many hours. I found it interesting to say the least.

This is because all instructors stop teaching students at the application level leaving correlation level behind

Once I flew with a guy who dropped full flaps on a 4 miles final. I asked him why he did so. He replied "because my instructor taught me to do so". So obviously application of full flaps at the final doesn't correlate to the fact that some final could be 10 miles long

I was on a BFR and the CFI pulled and emergency power out while on downwind to the runway. He added he wanted it to be a high obstacle approach from pattern altitude, 400 AGL on to a 2300 foot long grass/rock/dirt runway.

He was sure I would have a problem doing it since most of the pilots could not do it without a long final. So with that ... he pulled power.

I flew to about a 15 degree flare point at 400 AGL, applied full flap, trimmed, turned very short base-leg, got her lined up with the runway, then brought her into a straight side-slipped right down to the last 3 feet, she was shaking like all hell just broke loose, strengthen her out, flared and kissed the ground.

Taxied her off the active, roll to the tie down and shut her down. It was then ....

.... the white knuckled CFI looked at me and said, " that was great! ..... just don't do it again!"

Seems he had an issue with a side-slip and full flaps in a 172.

Cheers.

Not discourage your achievements, but this maneuver is commonly known as "power off 180" and by commercial standards performed from downwind leg ("abeam the numbers" position) to designated point on the runway within tolerances -0ft, +100 ft. This is one of the few maneuvers average pilot has to perform for single engine commercial certificate.


just to give you a better idea and visual aid how it looks like


During my commercial exam in Piper Arrow my DE asked me to do power off 180 and touch the wheels right at the numbers. I did although I'm not good pilot at all





Forward slip in Cessna 172 with full flaps is nor recommended by POH because may cause partial obscuration of airflow to empenage causing slight buffeting

Which is why, I for one am not comparing them to "modern planes". . .unless you count similar designs from the 20s and 30s as modern. Yes things did change, but it's shocking how little they did. With only a few exceptions, the basic responses in something like slip dynamics are not so different in general. Most of these elder designs are characterized by pronounced yaw rates and angles, and these are the things that will lead to powerful slips. If yaw to roll coupling is too great to be easily opposed by ailerons then that will be the limiting factor, but in no case of the aircraft we have in RoF will that happen such that slips should occur with only a few degrees of bank or yaw - in fact most of them should be very deep slippers.

As far as unique behavior in the slip, those that stick out in my mind as unique (with respect to slips) of what I've flown are few. In fact all I can really call "different" is the Fi-156 Storch which will snatch the rudder from under your feet and go hard against the stop if you slip it with more than approx 30% rudder deflection. . .try that on short final and it really will be final.

Yes, aircraft with powerful rudder authority and minimal aileron authority will be more prone to dropping the high wing, and vice versa, and slip angle and bank will be limited by one surface or the other, but these are design differences that exist in modern aircraft just as they do in older aircraft.

One thing that doesn't change is that larger slip angle dramatically increase the efective frontal area of an aircraft, and descent rates will increase significantly when you do this. . .and RoF aircraft should generally have greater ultimate yaw authority, and lower yaw and roll stability than they have.

Someone PM'ed me on another website and said I "didn't like RoF" because of my post about gyroscopic action, torque, and p-factor in RoF. The mistake in their thinking is that constructive criticism isn't a complaint, and if I didn't see RoF as one of the better sims made I wouldn't even wast the time posting about it. Providing feedback doesn't mean I think RoF sucks. . .I'm not sure why these observations would get anyone riled up. . .I'd like to think we all just want to see this sim become the best it can be.

actually it's true for any airplane. I just can imagine WWI pilot tries to fly F-14 with the same dramatic results