29 Mar 2024, 10:19 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Aerostars Posted: 01 Oct 2015, 08:14 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 09/02/09 Posts: 8415 Post Likes: +8303 Company: OAA Location: Oklahoma City - PWA/Calistoga KSTS
Aircraft: UMF3, UBF 2, P180 II
|
|
John & Stan,
We had a debate on here a few years ago regarding this issue of speed of mental recognition between round dials and glass. At that time, having fewer than 50 hours flying behind a G600 and missing round dials for similar reasons, I was in the camp of dials are faster with the brain.
My thought was that our brains see the needles and recognize trend without having to interpret and resolve numbers. Plus, the gauges and needles are bigger than the tapes on the glass, especially so with Aspen.
Now, after a few hundred hours behind glass, I think part of the slowness of mental recognition and subsequent correction I had at that time was due to inexperience with the glass, and perhaps for me, the recency of primary IFR training on glass. But I still don't have a solid idea which is faster. I too hear the anecdotal comments of more experienced pilots but wonder how much of their thoughts are due to familiarity issues? I have spoken to jet pilots with a lot of time flying tapes who think they are faster. Who knows? It would be interesting to take pilots of similar time & experience on dials, and a similar group of glass experienced pilots, and test for speed of recognition and correction. Perhaps that's already been done and I just haven't seen the results. It would be interesting.
I'm glad to have round dial backups in my plane. Unfortunately, they are located in a suboptimal place in the panel and get "ignored" a lot as a result. Their location also makes partial panel scanning pretty difficult.
_________________ Travel Air B4000, Waco UBF2,UMF3,YMF5, UPF7,YKS 6, Fairchild 24W, Cessna 120 Never enough!
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Aerostars Posted: 01 Oct 2015, 08:39 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/31/10 Posts: 13101 Post Likes: +6969
|
|
Username Protected wrote:
As for the simulated one vs really shutting one down and landing.. it's not fun. Don't do it. I've had an engine caged twice in a Navajo, they do fly a little different compared to simulated feather, but it's close enough not to matter.
Maybe I have issues...but I think its a lot of fun. I would do it more if it weren't for the extreme temperature cycles on the engine. What is the problem with running on one? Its a non-event. If you aren't COMFORTABLE caging a twin it may make sense to get comfortable. Its kind of like flying IMC for the first time. Eventually you don't even notice whether you are in a cloud or out. I would not want my first time to be loaded up with folks in a real emergency. I can also prove that book performance at zero thrust, and OEI numbers are different. That's good to know.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Aerostars Posted: 01 Oct 2015, 09:06 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/25/11 Posts: 9168 Post Likes: +17159 Location: KGNF, Grenada, MS
Aircraft: Baron, 180,195,J-3
|
|
First to Tony's comments on recognition of speed/altitude changes.
I can see one getting a much faster recognition with the G500 over the Aspen. Size is the achilles heal of the Aspen. There are approximately 80 buttons, dials, and readouts on an Aspen PFD. The readouts are crowded and small. Still, the Aspen has real advantages in redundancy so picking between the two is a close call.
Even after 150 hours behind the Aspens, I struggle to pick up all the info like I still can with steam. For me, the Garmin would have been the better choice. Perhaps replacing the AS and ALT gauges will improve my visual pickup. They are going RIGHT NEXT to the Aspen PDF.
With the Aspen, I have to move my eyes to the desired number and focus. I get no periphery recognition. I wear glasses with gradual transition from near to far, so I have to move my head to get the correct vision. Though I have 20/15 with my glasses, they do make a difference. I used to be a very good rifle shot. Now, with a scope, I simply cannot get real accuracy so I see a similar issue, IMO.
As to shut down and feathering, I think it is a good idea to do at least once with any airplane you are flying. I mostly think the shutdown/feathering procedure should be practiced "dry", in the hangar, regularly. A simulator is great for this practice and muscle memory.
The main point of this particular practice for me was to establish the "gait" of my airplane on an IFR approach with gear down, 20 degree flaps, and approach speeds. The short answer is full power on the good engine. You will probably come down a little faster than my personal desired speed of 116 knots, but you can fine tune that. If it happens "for real", Stan pretty much laid it out. IF YOU LOSE AN ENGINE ON APPROACH IFR, LAND THE AIRPLANE AND CALL THE INSURANCE COMPANY. A go around is flirting with danger big time. If you lose it on go around, you are almost certainly dead.
I think it would be interesting if some Baron owners would find the gait for their airplane in the same configuration. Stan has a B-58 and I figure he's already planning that for his next flight.
Jgreen
_________________ Waste no time with fools. They have nothing to lose.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Aerostars Posted: 01 Oct 2015, 09:51 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 19252 Post Likes: +23615 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: But I still don't have a solid idea which is faster. The total response time is made up of two parts: Response time from change to visual indication. Response time from visual indication to brain recognition. I don't believe the first is significant between steam and glass. Steam has mechanical inertia that the glass doesn't have. Glass has communication, filtering, and redraw latencies the steam doesn't have. Both are too quick to really matter. So the primary effect here is human recognition time. As you use the equipment more, this will improve as the process moves lower into your subconscious. For either system, the first day you see it, you have to really think about what you are seeing and that slows things down. Steam only seems faster because you are used to it. Find a pilot who started in glass and they will think steam is slow and mentally harder. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Aerostars Posted: 01 Oct 2015, 15:36 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 06/28/11 Posts: 1021 Post Likes: +375 Company: FractionalLaw.com Location: Based ABE, Allentown, PA
Aircraft: King Air 350
|
|
Username Protected wrote: However I have never landed like that as I thought the engine could not be started on the ground with the prop feathered, thus prompting my question... Hilgard
Hilgard,
According to Twin Cessna Guru, Tony Saxton, it is almost impossible to start a GTSIO on the ground with the prop in feather. A few years ago, on the final shutown of my engines prior to their scheduled removal for two factory new engines, I feathered the props. I could not re-start the engines with the props feathered.
I have a prop paddle - not too hard to make.
For more info on 421 single-engine training, see my articles in the Twin Cessna Flyer in July 2015 and March 2012.
Best,
Dan
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Aerostars Posted: 01 Oct 2015, 18:57 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/25/11 Posts: 9168 Post Likes: +17159 Location: KGNF, Grenada, MS
Aircraft: Baron, 180,195,J-3
|
|
Tom,
I have maybe 20 Baron hours, but it has been a long time ago.
To be sure we are "together" on terminology, when I say "gait", it includes power setting. So the normal "gait of my Aerostar crossing the FAF with two engines is 20 degrees of flap, gear down, 16" MAP, 2500 RPM and 116 knots. This will "usually" give me a descent right down the ILS.
My point is if I am in the approach gait stated above and I lose and engine, if I want to keep all other parameters of the gait the same, what is the power setting. What I learned is that on losing an engine, the power change necessary to keep all other gait parameters is 27-28 inches on the good engine.
Reading your post I get the impression that your approach gait crossing the FAF is gear down and no flaps until you have the runway made. There are several traits of the Aerostar that would make me uncomfortable flying past the FAF with no flaps. One would be that there is a pretty good pitch up with the initial 20 degrees of flaps. Going from zero to full flaps would be a heck of a roller coaster ride. Another is, I think, that you would have some speed control issues as the A* is very slick. But then, I've never tried it.
Jgreen
_________________ Waste no time with fools. They have nothing to lose.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Aerostars Posted: 01 Oct 2015, 23:30 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 02/24/14 Posts: 223 Post Likes: +151 Location: Ponoka AB
Aircraft: P210N
|
|
Username Protected wrote:
Hilgard,
According to Twin Cessna Guru, Tony Saxton, it is almost impossible to start a GTSIO on the ground with the prop in feather. A few years ago, on the final shutown of my engines prior to their scheduled removal for two factory new engines, I feathered the props. I could not re-start the engines with the props feathered.
I have a prop paddle - not too hard to make.
For more info on 421 single-engine training, see my articles in the Twin Cessna Flyer in July 2015 and March 2012.
Best,
Dan
Dan Thanks that is valuable info, I have read your excellent 07/2015 article and I will look the 2012 one up. Do you have pics of the prop paddle and can you explain how that works? Hilgard
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Aerostars Posted: 03 Oct 2015, 21:05 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 06/07/12 Posts: 536 Post Likes: +891 Location: Addison, TX
|
|
According to Twin Cessna Guru, Tony Saxton, it is almost impossible to start a GTSIO on the ground with the prop in feather. A few years ago, on the final shutown of my engines prior to their scheduled removal for two factory new engines, I feathered the props. I could not re-start the engines with the props feathered. I have a prop paddle - not too hard to make. For more info on 421 single-engine training, see my articles in the Twin Cessna Flyer in July 2015 and March 2012. Best, Dan[/quote] Dan, I don't think I'm following you on this. Are you saying you can't restart a 421 after feathering in flight? I only have ~10 hrs in a 421 and that was a long time ago but I sure don't remember any warning about practicing an engine shutdown. Glad I didn't find out about it the hard way.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Aerostars Posted: 03 Oct 2015, 23:06 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 02/24/14 Posts: 223 Post Likes: +151 Location: Ponoka AB
Aircraft: P210N
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Dan, I don't think I'm following you on this. Are you saying you can't restart a 421 after feathering in flight? I only have ~10 hrs in a 421 and that was a long time ago but I sure don't remember any warning about practicing an engine shutdown. Glad I didn't find out about it the hard way. Shannon I believe what Dan meant is that the geared engine on the 421 won't start on the ground if the prop is in the feathered position, they will start fine in the air due to the airflow that windmills the prop once you start cranking. Hilgard
|
|
Top |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us
BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a
forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include
the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner,
Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.
BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates.
Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.
Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2024
|
|
|
|