Piper Archer ... A plane I have flown a lot and really like

[Robert A Whit]

You may see what it is like to pilot this aircraft. By the way, notice he does not use flaps to take off.


http://youtu.be/4tTo3NmmkII

[Marcus Aurelius]

You may see what it is like to pilot this aircraft. By the way, notice he does not use flaps to take off.


http://youtu.be/4tTo3NmmkII


I notice you're completely full of shit. There is ZERO way to tell from your posted video whether or not flaps were used during takeoff. No mention of the setting... no pulling or not pulling the lever between the seats on the floor, nada. Completely impossible to verify flaps or no flaps. You're just being a dick. Again.

Piper Cherokee Archer flight/owners manual...

http://www.redskyventures.org/doc/other-poh/PA28-II-POH-retyped-NotreDamePilotsInitiative.pdf

Normal field, flaps set
Soft Field take off, flaps 25 degrees (2nd notch)
Short Field, Obstacle Clearance, flaps 25 degrees (2nd notch)

SO, depending on conditions, field length, etc., flaps ARE used, if called for.

Because that looked like a typical field, it is 'probable' that flaps were not used. You have no visible evidence to definitively say they were not.


Airline Pilots forum...Cessna 172 and Piper PA-28
http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/flight-schools-training/18006-cessna-172-piper-pa-28-a.html

The pipers have a big fat wing with a higher wing-loading. They found in certification that it performed best with more flaps.

[Robert A Whit]

I notice you're completely full of shit. There is ZERO way to tell from your posted video whether or not flaps were used during takeoff. No mention of the setting... no pulling or not pulling the lever between the seats on the floor, nada. Completely impossible to verify flaps or no flaps. You're just being a dick. Again.

Piper Cherokee Archer flight/owners manual...

http://www.redskyventures.org/doc/other-poh/PA28-II-POH-retyped-NotreDamePilotsInitiative.pdf

Normal field, flaps set (Yeah that means zero or flaps up)
Soft Field take off, flaps 25 degrees (2nd notch)
Short Field, Obstacle Clearance, flaps 25 degrees (2nd notch)

SO, depending on conditions, field length, etc., flaps ARE used, if called for.

Because that looked like a typical field, it is 'probable' that flaps were not used. You have no visible evidence to definitively say they were not.


Airline Pilots forum...Cessna 172 and Piper PA-28
http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/flight-schools-training/18006-cessna-172-piper-pa-28-a.html

You are some 14 year old child.

I damned well know the take off setting (zero degrees or none) on a typical paved runway.

Only a dip shit would put on flaps on that runway.

Here is what my card on the Archer says about Flaps.

Normal field take off ... Flaps up.

I figured you would bitch about this too.

And I am in your head and am right as usual.

[Marcus Aurelius]

You are some 14 year old child.

I damned well know the take off setting (zero degrees or none) on a typical paved runway.

Only a dip shit would put on flaps on that runway.

Here is what my card on the Archer says about Flaps.

Normal field take off ... Flaps up.

I figured you would bitch about this too.

And I am in your head and am right as usual.

Your video doesn't prove your comment. You are ASSuming he followed standard procedures, based on the runway. Feel free to ASSume anything you like, but your ASSumption does NOT equate to fact.

As for your 'card', I already stated that from the link I provided to an actual owners/flight manual. It's called backing up your post, dumb ass. With fact.

[aboutime]

Your video doesn't prove your comment. You are ASSuming he followed standard procedures, based on the runway. Feel free to ASSume anything you like, but your ASSumption does NOT equate to fact.

As for your 'card', I already stated that from the link I provided to an actual owners/flight manual. It's called backing up your post, dumb ass. With fact.


Marcus. Are you as Unimpressed with this old story as I am?

I can't believe, after all this time. Someone is still arguing about...of all things...."FLAPS?"

I could understand little people, like children, with still...somewhat empty brains insisting how good that COOKIE was.
But a grown-up, much older than most of us on this forum. Still insisting something NOBODY REALLY GIVES A SHIT ABOUT anymore???

Un...f'in, believable!

[Robert A Whit]

Your video doesn't prove your comment. You are ASSuming he followed standard procedures, based on the runway. Feel free to ASSume anything you like, but your ASSumption does NOT equate to fact.

As for your 'card', I already stated that from the link I provided to an actual owners/flight manual. It's called backing up your post, dumb ass. With fact.

Even though you admit that you never took flying lessons, ergo are not a pilot, never flew the Piper Archer and further posted proof I am correct when you posted the take off settings, you still are so arrogant as to debate me about flying?

Man you are not smart but you are crazy.

Why do you discuss topics you know nothing about?

[Robert A Whit]

Marcus. Are you as Unimpressed with this old story as I am?

I can't believe, after all this time. Someone is still arguing about...of all things...."FLAPS?"

I could understand little people, like children, with still...somewhat empty brains insisting how good that COOKIE was.
But a grown-up, much older than most of us on this forum. Still insisting something NOBODY REALLY GIVES A SHIT ABOUT anymore???

Un...f'in, believable!

If you meant that, you would never have commented.

[aboutime]

Even though you admit that you never took flying lessons, ergo are not a pilot, never flew the Piper Archer and further posted proof I am correct when you posted the take off settings, you still are so arrogant as to debate me about flying?

Man you are not smart but you are crazy.

Why do you discuss topics you know nothing about?


Robert. Please, please? Do us all, and yourself a favor here and read that last sentence you wrote above...back to yourself.

Then you will have the answer to what most all of us have been thinking about you all this time.

Not to mention. How very few of us actually CARE what you write on everything.

[Robert A Whit]

Robert. Please, please? Do us all, and yourself a favor here and read that last sentence you wrote above...back to yourself.

Then you will have the answer to what most all of us have been thinking about you all this time.

Not to mention. How very few of us actually CARE what you write on everything.

Most of us means you and Marcus.

Lord, are you also like Marcus an expert pilot of the Piper Archer?

Marcus busts in to insult. And you and he are twins.

You must grow up at some point. Make it this year. Promise yourself that by January, you will grow up.

You are the minority man. Stop trying to pretend you have wide support.

You fight to get attention.

[aboutime]

Most of us means you and Marcus.

Lord, are you also like Marcus an expert pilot of the Piper Archer?

Marcus busts in to insult. And you and he are twins.

You must grow up at some point. Make it this year. Promise yourself that by January, you will grow up.

You are the minority man. Stop trying to pretend you have wide support.

You fight to get attention.


Thank ya, very much! Elvis has left the building Robert.

[Robert A Whit]

Thank ya, very much! Elvis has left the building Robert.

You showed up to whine about my comments over proper take off's in the Piper Archer.

If you don't like reading about take offs, don't read those posts. You come to whine.

Grow up. Elvis is dead but you forgot that too.

I saw you for the first time admit to another poster you made an error. Believe me bub, you make a lot of errors.

One of them is this wee crap where to make yourself feel superior you act like you have wide support.

What a loser.

You must need attention to keep this nonsense up all the time.

You can't even get along with Alik.

[aboutime]

You showed up to whine about my comments over proper take off's in the Piper Archer.

If you don't like reading about take offs, don't read those posts. You come to whine.

Grow up. Elvis is dead but you forgot that too.

I saw you for the first time admit to another poster you made an error. Believe me bub, you make a lot of errors.

One of them is this wee crap where to make yourself feel superior you act like you have wide support.

What a loser.

You must need attention to keep this nonsense up all the time.

You can't even get along with Alik.



Now you've done it! You've gone and STEPPED ON MY BLUE SUEDE SHOES!

[Robert A Whit]

Now you've done it! You've gone and STEPPED ON MY BLUE SUEDE SHOES!

See how fast you flipped the topic off airplane take offs to being about you?

I know you love attention.

[aboutime]

See how fast you flipped the topic off airplane take offs to being about you?

I know you love attention.


You are CORRECT sir. I flipped the topic off airplane take offs just for the attention you insisted. Wow Robert. You're good!

Bet you can't wait to tell us all about how the pilot of that Plane in San Francisco....DIDNT USE HIS FLAPS!

[Robert A Whit]

For some odd reason, we have a couple posters devoted to derailing the topic about the take off of the Piper Archer, an airplane I personally have flown a lot.

We have a poster who knows nothing about standard take-offs so he tries to claim his knowledge is superior to my knowledge.

I hold the license as a pilot and he holds what?

Then the most recent poster wants the topic to be about him. As he does admit.

[aboutime]

For some odd reason, we have a couple posters devoted to derailing the topic about the take off of the Piper Archer, an airplane I personally have flown a lot.

We have a poster who knows nothing about standard take-offs so he tries to claim his knowledge is superior to my knowledge.

I hold the license as a pilot and he holds what?

Then the most recent poster wants the topic to be about him. As he does admit.


5209 Sure thing Robert. No Flaps from me. You are always right about everything.
By the way. Nobody cares what license you have. That sounds very much like this is MORE about You??? Isn't it?

[Voted4Reagan]

And that particular plane has a Radio that broadcasts on FM.

Because Robert Says so....

[Robert A Whit]

And that particular plane has a Radio that broadcasts on FM.

Because Robert Says so....

Well, I did fuck up. And I long ago admitted I had.

And you have fucked up too. You fucked up trying to pretend I am your enemy.

[aboutime]

Well, I did fuck up. And I long ago admitted I had.

And you have fucked up too. You fucked up trying to pretend I am your enemy.



This thread has become SO MUCH FUN...5210 I don't care what anybody says. Fun, is Fun!

[Robert A Whit]

One way to get About time back on topic is to post this view of the normal take off of the Piper Archer. i enjoyed it a lot though for more fun, the Mooney 201 I flew was more enjoyable.


http://youtu.be/jl7Wudsv_m0

You know what though, the Mooney 201 is really my favorite of those i checked out in as PIC.

Check this one out. The Archer has fixed gear (Wheels are always down) but notice after taking off the mooney retracts the landing gear. A bit about the Mooney that is different.

First, the interior is a bit more cramped than the Archer. Next it has a variable pitch prop vs the Archer fixed prop. It has more power than the Archer and flies faster. And it gets awesome fuel economy.

The Archer is not classified as a complex aircraft but the Mooney 201 is. To transition to the Mooney requred at Hayward 5 hours with an instructor pilot also up front. It would be fun to go back to fly that airplane again.


http://youtu.be/M4DCPbPqcNU

[Robert A Whit]

I have seen only one of these and it flew from TX to the Livermore, CA airshow.

It was then being used to train fighter pilots in some countries.

I would love to fly this airplane.


http://youtu.be/gatnhoy8HdQ

[Marcus Aurelius]

Even though you admit that you never took flying lessons, ergo are not a pilot, never flew the Piper Archer and further posted proof I am correct when you posted the take off settings, you still are so arrogant as to debate me about flying?

Man you are not smart but you are crazy.

Why do you discuss topics you know nothing about?

you stated categorically that flaps were not used in the takeoff video in the OP.

You are ASSUMING this.

Unless, of course, you can point to the part of the video which actually proves what you said. Can you? Point to the exact moment in the video which proves flaps were not used?

[Marcus Aurelius]

...You fight to get attention.

This, from the dumb ass who admitted making a statement in the OP specifically to get certain posters to respond? I think you are the one who wants attention.

[Marcus Aurelius]

For some odd reason, we have a couple posters devoted to derailing the topic about the take off of the Piper Archer, an airplane I personally have flown a lot. right.

We have a poster who knows nothing about standard take-offs so he tries to claim his knowledge is superior to my knowledge. So, the owners manual I posted.. I made it up? It's a fake? Dumb ass.

I hold the license as a pilot and he holds what?The only thing you hold is your johnson.

Then the most recent poster wants the topic to be about him. As he does admit.

Comments in RED above.


What Whitless doesn't get folks, is that his video does not prove his opening comment about flaps on that particular takeoff. I've already freely admitted that flaps 'set' is standard on a normal runway and takeoff. The issue here is Whitless stating with 100% certainty that flaps were not used in that OP video, when there is NOTHING in the video that conclusively proves it. Whitless is apparently dumbfounded by the concept of 'proof'.

[aboutime]

Notice to All who READ Here.

You can be certain. Everything the OP says, has said, will say in the future is...without any question, or doubt.

The truth, and nothing but the truth. Because. HE SAID SO.

P.S. If this note is about ME. Please feel free to explain. How that works?

[logroller]

This shouldn't happen in the lounge. First and last warning, then thread bans.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=650629#post650629)
Even though you admit that you never took flying lessons, ergo are not a pilot, never flew the Piper Archer and further posted proof I am correct when you posted the take off settings, you still are so arrogant as to debate me about flying?

Man you are not smart but you are crazy.

Why do you discuss topics you know nothing about?


you stated categorically that flaps were not used in the takeoff video in the OP.

You are ASSUMING this.

Unless, of course, you can point to the part of the video which actually proves what you said. Can you? Point to the exact moment in the video which proves flaps were not used?

I had no idea you are a FAA certified flight instructor.

Well how about that.

Maybe my flight instructor was full of shit all those times he instructed me to take off with no flaps.

Maybe the FAA flight inspector that granted me my pilots license was so full of shit he missed my mistake.

Gee, you sure think you understand being a pilot for some rather odd reason.

If you were a pilot, you would understand why I said no flaps. It is standard protocol as I have told you in the past.

[Marcus Aurelius]

I had no idea you are a FAA certified flight instructor.

Well how about that.

Maybe my flight instructor was full of shit all those times he instructed me to take off with no flaps.

Maybe the FAA flight inspector that granted me my pilots license was so full of shit he missed my mistake.

Gee, you sure think you understand being a pilot for some rather odd reason.

If you were a pilot, you would understand why I said no flaps. It is standard protocol as I have told you in the past.

Since Logroller warned us not to keep it up, and you're keeping it up, I'll be the bigger man and ask the same, serious question I already asked... twice.

You indicated the video showed no flaps were used, yet you refuse to point out which part of the video proves it.

Can you, or can you not, point to the exact part of the video which PROVES `100% that flaps were not used in that particular takeoff?

Standard procedure, as I have already stated, would make one think no flaps were used, but that is not PROOF.

Failure to indicate the part of the video, is an indication that you cannot PROVE it beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Robert A Whit]

Since Logroller warned us not to keep it up, and you're keeping it up, I'll be the bigger man and ask the same, serious question I already asked... twice.

You indicated the video showed no flaps were used, yet you refuse to point out which part of the video proves it.

Can you, or can you not, point to the exact part of the video which PROVES `100% that flaps were not used in that particular takeoff?

Standard procedure, as I have already stated, would make one think no flaps were used, but that is not PROOF.

Failure to indicate the part of the video, is an indication that you cannot PROVE it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Well, perhaps you can show me him using flaps on a perfectly normal take off where he has instructions in the airplane to not use flaps?

Do you think he violated the protocol?

Had i said he used flaps, you would have a better case to whine about.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Well, perhaps you can show me him using flaps on a perfectly normal take off where he has instructions in the airplane to not use flaps?

Do you think he violated the protocol?

Had i said he used flaps, you would have a better case to whine about.


Failure to indicate the part of the video, is an indication that you cannot PROVE it beyond a reasonable doubt.

I win.

[aboutime]

Marcus. What wasn't shown, or linked during that flight. Was the results of poor flying.

Bet this surprised the CRAP out of a few people too!








5212 Click to enlarge, and see the results.

[logroller]

Why would not using flaps be advantageous?

[Marcus Aurelius]

Why would not using flaps be advantageous?

It all depends on the situation. Normal surface and length runway, no flaps generally needed. Short or soft, or obstacle runway, various degree of flaps used, as per the owners manual/flight manual I posted the link to.

I've said repeatedly in this thread, the video in the OP doesn't 'prove' flaps or no flaps were used during takeoff. Is it likely? Yup, said that. Does the vid 'prove' it, as the OP contended? Nope.

Just the facts.:cool:

[Robert A Whit]

Why would not using flaps be advantageous?

The Piper company specifies that on take offs use no flaps. (some exceptions apply)

If one is on a soft runway or must leave very early, then the factory instructs to use flaps.

I was looking at my pilots log book today and I flew the first day of training on May 27, 1980 but it was on August 20, 1980 that I first used flaps to take off. I flew 51 hours and had never used flaps to take off. Clearly it is seldom one uses flaps in Pipers to take off.

[Robert A Whit]

Marcus. What wasn't shown, or linked during that flight. Was the results of poor flying.

Bet this surprised the CRAP out of a few people too.

Tell me what that pilot did wrong?

[Robert A Whit]

Since you are trying to act as an expert pilot here, I want you to tell the forum

1. How many hours have you logged being trained as a pilot?
2. How many take offs do you have?
3. How many times do you think a person wants to use flaps, when the manual tells him not to use them, to take off?
4. How many landings have you done?
5. What is your cross country experience as a pilot?

You just had to jump into a topic you know nothing about for some odd reason.

I had logged 51 hours in Pipers before I was first asked by the flight instructor to use flaps to take off.

Gee, you really think he fucked up?

The standard configuration on a paved runway is to use no flaps. That is why I said he used no flaps. As well as since I am a pilot, I can tell if he had put on flaps. Had he done so, he would willfully not follow the instructions by the aircraft maker.

See, what you don't understand is there is this little thing we pilots use called the check list.

My check list that I have in my pilots kit states to not use flaps.

Had I said he used flaps, you would have a more valid case to try to argue.

I repeat, I don't doubt he followed the aircraft check list and since it calls for no flaps, he used no flaps.

[aboutime]

Since you are trying to act as an expert pilot here, I want you to tell the forum

1. How many hours have you logged being trained as a pilot?
2. How many take offs do you have?
3. How many times do you think a person wants to use flaps, when the manual tells him not to use them, to take off?
4. How many landings have you done?
5. What is your cross country experience as a pilot?

You just had to jump into a topic you know nothing about for some odd reason.

I had logged 51 hours in Pipers before I was first asked by the flight instructor to use flaps to take off.

Gee, you really think he fucked up?

The standard configuration on a paved runway is to use no flaps. That is why I said he used no flaps. As well as since I am a pilot, I can tell if he had put on flaps. Had he done so, he would willfully not follow the instructions by the aircraft maker.

See, what you don't understand is there is this little thing we pilots use called the check list.

My check list that I have in my pilots kit states to not use flaps.

Had I said he used flaps, you would have a more valid case to try to argue.

I repeat, I don't doubt he followed the aircraft check list and since it calls for no flaps, he used no flaps.


Here ya go Marcus. As a defense against the FLAPping Gums of someone who just doesn't know when to SHUT UP.

Robert. Please? Please? Please? LET IT GO! 5214

[logroller]

It all depends on the situation. Normal surface and length runway, no flaps generally needed. Short or soft, or obstacle runway, various degree of flaps used, as per the owners manual/flight manual I posted the link to.

I've said repeatedly in this thread, the video in the OP doesn't 'prove' flaps or no flaps were used during takeoff. Is it likely? Yup, said that. Does the vid 'prove' it, as the OP contended? Nope.

Just the facts.:cool:


The Piper company specifies that on take offs use no flaps. (some exceptions apply)

If one is on a soft runway or must leave very early, then the factory instructs to use flaps.

I was looking at my pilots log book today and I flew the first day of training on May 27, 1980 but it was on August 20, 1980 that I first used flaps to take off. I flew 51 hours and had never used flaps to take off. Clearly it is seldom one uses flaps in Pipers to take off.
Perhaps I should rephrase; what would be the disadvantage of using flaps for take off?

[aboutime]

Perhaps I should rephrase; what would be the disadvantage of using flaps for take off?


logroller. There is NO disadvantage to using flaps for take off, or landings. Flaps merely provide more surface area that provides LIFT, when slower engine speeds must be used. It just helps to prevent FALLING LIKE A ROCK when airspeed decreases.

Simple way to experiment with it. Hold your hand out the window while driving at normal speeds and feel the LIFT take place. Or, try it at higher speeds, and you get more LIFT to your hand.

It's just common sense and Physics. Flaps are placed on wings to assist the pilot, and passengers from becoming DEAD pilot's and passengers.

[Robert A Whit]

Here ya go Marcus. As a defense against the FLAPping Gums of someone who just doesn't know when to SHUT UP.

Robert. Please? Please? Please? LET IT GO! 5214

All you have to do is what most posters do and just ignore or read and not comment.

Besides you keep telling me you have fun and are enjoying the forum. Then you point to me and proclaim you are really enjoying yourself.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Since you are trying to act as an expert pilot here, I want you to tell the forum

1. How many hours have you logged being trained as a pilot?
2. How many take offs do you have?
3. How many times do you think a person wants to use flaps, when the manual tells him not to use them, to take off?
4. How many landings have you done?
5. What is your cross country experience as a pilot?

You just had to jump into a topic you know nothing about for some odd reason.

I had logged 51 hours in Pipers before I was first asked by the flight instructor to use flaps to take off.

Gee, you really think he fucked up?

The standard configuration on a paved runway is to use no flaps. That is why I said he used no flaps. As well as since I am a pilot, I can tell if he had put on flaps. Had he done so, he would willfully not follow the instructions by the aircraft maker.

See, what you don't understand is there is this little thing we pilots use called the check list.

My check list that I have in my pilots kit states to not use flaps.

Had I said he used flaps, you would have a more valid case to try to argue.

I repeat, I don't doubt he followed the aircraft check list and since it calls for no flaps, he used no flaps.

logroller asked us to knock it off. Why haven't you?

[Marcus Aurelius]

logroller. There is NO disadvantage to using flaps for take off, or landings. Flaps merely provide more surface area that provides LIFT, when slower engine speeds must be used. It just helps to prevent FALLING LIKE A ROCK when airspeed decreases.

Simple way to experiment with it. Hold your hand out the window while driving at normal speeds and feel the LIFT take place. Or, try it at higher speeds, and you get more LIFT to your hand.

It's just common sense and Physics. Flaps are placed on wings to assist the pilot, and passengers from becoming DEAD pilot's and passengers.

I find it amusing that I've asked a very simple question a number of times, and the only response I get from Robert is that I am not the expert, he is. No actual answer to my question, just a statement that he's the expert.

Odd, indeed.

[Robert A Whit]

Perhaps I should rephrase; what would be the disadvantage of using flaps for take off?

I have flown 3 Piper models and the standard check list states to not use flaps.

Tell you the truth, not using flaps gives you a bit more airspeed and speed is your friend as well as altitude.

When you find you are on some short field, or have an obstacle in your path such as a tree, or hill or the field is pretty soft, then you can use flap in the 3 Pipers I fly.

But the standard operating procedure on paved runways is to not use flaps for the 3 Pipers I spent a lot of time flying. I checked my log book and per my records, I had 158 takeoffs prior to using flaps for soft field and short field takeoffs.

We use checklists. It is ingrained in our understanding since the flight instructors insist you follow it.

I have several hours in the Mooney 201 and standard for it is 15 degrees flap setting for normal take offs.

On the Mooney 201, you retract landing gear at 108 kts indicated. And you retract flaps in climb.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=650772#post650772)
Since you are trying to act as an expert pilot here, I want you to tell the forum

1. How many hours have you logged being trained as a pilot?
2. How many take offs do you have?
3. How many times do you think a person wants to use flaps, when the manual tells him not to use them, to take off?
4. How many landings have you done?
5. What is your cross country experience as a pilot?

You just had to jump into a topic you know nothing about for some odd reason.

I had logged 51 hours in Pipers before I was first asked by the flight instructor to use flaps to take off.

Gee, you really think he fucked up?

The standard configuration on a paved runway is to use no flaps. That is why I said he used no flaps. As well as since I am a pilot, I can tell if he had put on flaps. Had he done so, he would willfully not follow the instructions by the aircraft maker.

See, what you don't understand is there is this little thing we pilots use called the check list.

My check list that I have in my pilots kit states to not use flaps.

Had I said he used flaps, you would have a more valid case to try to argue.

I repeat, I don't doubt he followed the aircraft check list and since it calls for no flaps, he used no flaps.


logroller asked us to knock it off. Why haven't you?

Why not admit you are not a pilot and have no training and just end it there?

[Robert A Whit]

I find it amusing that I've asked a very simple question a number of times, and the only response I get from Robert is that I am not the expert, he is. No actual answer to my question, just a statement that he's the expert.

Odd, indeed.

I asked you to tell us all your pilots experience ...

Nothing but crickets.

[Robert A Whit]

Logroller, since the Expert Abouttime announces there is no disadvantage, maybe he can explain why the Piper Archer flight manual calls for no flaps unless special conditions exist? And guess what, the same rule applies to the Warrior and the Tomahawk. Says so right on my check-list.

What happens at the FBO I spent most of my time flying out of is that the FBO will issue a pilot the Check-list. The aircraft has it's operating manual with the aircraft and the check-list is also in that book.

[aboutime]

All you have to do is what most posters do and just ignore or read and not comment.

Besides you keep telling me you have fun and are enjoying the forum. Then you point to me and proclaim you are really enjoying yourself.


Robert. THAT...is called Telling the truth. What do you have against anyone telling the truth?

[Robert A Whit]

Robert. THAT...is called Telling the truth. What do you have against anyone telling the truth?

It is the habit I enjoy and employ to the maximum extent possible.

[aboutime]

It is the habit I enjoy and employ to the maximum extent possible.


Then you'll have no problem letting all of us know WHEN YOU START???

[Robert A Whit]

Then you'll have no problem letting all of us know WHEN YOU START???


English your second language? I stated I employ this.

Besides, didn't you want this topic to end?

[Marcus Aurelius]

...I checked my log book and per my records, I had 158 takeoffs prior to using flaps for soft field and short field takeoffs...



...I was looking at my pilots log book today and I flew the first day of training on May 27, 1980 but it was on August 20, 1980 that I first used flaps to take off. I flew 51 hours and had never used flaps to take off. ....

Let's look at the math...

51 hours... that's 3,060 hours before Whitless used flaps for takeoff.

Now, 158 flights before he used flaps, means that his average flight time was...

19 minutes and 20 seconds, give or take a few seconds.:laugh:


Do I 'really' need to look up the average length of a flight lesson? I think not.

[Robert A Whit]

Gor a note back this evening


Say Al: Did you fly any aircraft that called for using flaps on a normal take off? ~~~~ Robert
Not that I can remember, I don't think so.~~~~~.Al

[Marcus Aurelius]

Gor a note back this evening


Say Al: Did you fly any aircraft that called for using flaps on a normal take off? ~~~~ Robert

Not that I can remember, I don't think so.~~~~~.Al



http://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/showthread.php?68896-Deploy-any-flaps-at-takeoff

FLAPS provide lift at slower speeds. In REAL LIfe, planes equipped with flaps, USUALLY use them on takeoff. With General Aviation planes such as Cessna (http://www.fspilotshop.com/advanced_search_result.php?keywords=Cessna&utm_source=flightsimcom&utm_medium=forum&utm_campaign=sitelink)s, Pipers, etc. ONE click..ie the first position, is "Normal" for takeoff. The Cessna (http://www.fspilotshop.com/advanced_search_result.php?keywords=Cessna&utm_source=flightsimcom&utm_medium=forum&utm_campaign=sitelink)s have an electric switch on the panel. The older Piper Cherokees had a handle on the floor equipped with "notches" like the handbrake in a car. First notch was used for normal takeoff. Once the plane Lifts Off and establishes a reasonable rate of climb at a good speed, the flaps are retracted.

I'll take the word of a pilot over the invisible, possibly imaginary 'Al', any day.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=650809#post650809)
...I checked my log book and per my records, I had 158 takeoffs prior to using flaps for soft field and short field takeoffs...





http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=650766#post650766)
...I was looking at my pilots log book today and I flew the first day of training on May 27, 1980 but it was on August 20, 1980 that I first used flaps to take off. I flew 51 hours and had never used flaps to take off. ....



Let's look at the math...

51 hours... that's 3,060 hours before Whitless used flaps for takeoff./////////////*1

Now, 158 flights before he used flaps, means that his average flight time was...

19 minutes and 20 seconds, give or take a few seconds.:laugh:///////////////////*2


Do I 'really' need to look up the average length of a flight lesson? I think not.

51 hours flight time means 51 hours rather than your figure of 3,060 hours. Math is not your topic.

158 landings, not flights. Some flights would produce 12 TO/Landings. We measure landings.

For instance on two flights I had 10 landings per flight, one had 11 landings and one had 12. The rest had less than 10 landings, one had 8 for example.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=650874#post650874)
Let's look at the math...

51 hours... that's 3,060 hoursminutes before Whitless used flaps for takeoff./////////////*1

Now, 158 flights before he used flaps, means that his average flight time was...

19 minutes and 20 seconds, give or take a few seconds.:laugh:///////////////////*2


Do I 'really' need to look up the average length of a flight lesson? I think not.






51 hours flight time means 51 hours rather than your figure of 3,060 hours. Math is not your topic. typo, dipshit.. corrected above. the math stands.

158 landings, not flights. Some flights would produce 12 TO/Landings. We measure landings.
Then why did you call them takeoffs, if you only count landings, dumb ass?

I had 158 takeoffs prior to using flaps


For instance on two flights I had 10 landings per flight, one had 11 landings and one had 12. The rest had less than 10 landings, one had 8 for example.z
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.... spin, spin spin

[Robert A Whit]

So, his spin is he made a typo. Sure a typo is when he said 3,060 hours after being told it was 158 Landings which he called take offs. Well Prior to each landing there was a take off. And the last thing one does is land.

Yawn Oh yeah, he claims the math stands. ROFLMAO Somebody talk to that dude. 158 flights in my case was not lasting 3,060 hours. His comments are still there.

Stick a fork in that clown. He is done.

[Marcus Aurelius]

So, his spin is he made a typo. Sure a typo is when he said 3,060 hours after being told it was 158 Landings which he called take offs. Well Prior to each landing there was a take off. And the last thing one does is land.

Yawn Oh yeah, he claims the math stands. ROFLMAO Somebody talk to that dude. 158 flights in my case was not lasting 3,060 hours. His comments are still there.

Stick a fork in that clown. He is done.


http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=650874#post650874)
Let's look at the math...

51 hours... that's 3,060 <s>hours</s> minutes before Whitless used flaps for takeoff./////////////*1

Now, 158 flights before he used flaps, means that his average flight time was...

19 minutes and 20 seconds, give or take a few seconds.:laugh:///////////////////*2


Do I 'really' need to look up the average length of a flight lesson? I think not.

Only a brain dead liar like you would think that wasn't a typo, when I said 51 hours in the same sentence. :rolleyes:

You... are a dumb ass... period.

[Robert A Whit]

You are so dumb MA because i explained it to you and because you are not a pilot, you simply do not get it.

Dumb smack

[Marcus Aurelius]

You are so dumb MA because i explained it to you and because you are not a pilot, you simply do not get it.

Dumb smack

You're the one who just doesn't get it, dumb ass.

For 59 posts now, I've been trying to explain to you the difference between ASSumption and fact. Your statement that the video showed he did not use flaps is simply incorrect. It's an ASSumption, based on the normal runway surface and length. NOTHING in the video proves it 100%. I've asked you repeatedly to show us the point in the video that PROVES it, and you've failed utterly to do so.

Is it possible? Certainl;y. Is it likely? Certainly. Is it proven by the video? Nope.

Face it. You've failed, yet again.

Live with the shame.

[Robert A Whit]

You're the one who just doesn't get it, dumb ass.

For 59 posts now, I've been trying to explain to you the difference between ASSumption and fact. Your statement that the video showed he did not use flaps is simply incorrect. It's an ASSumption, based on the normal runway surface and length. NOTHING in the video proves it 100%. I've asked you repeatedly to show us the point in the video that PROVES it, and you've failed utterly to do so.

Is it possible? Certainl;y. Is it likely? Certainly. Is it proven by the video? Nope.

Face it. You've failed, yet again.

Live with the shame.

I can't prove you wear shoes to work or to town ... But i am quite certain ou do.

Your problem is you can't spot what it looks like when one takes off in the Piper with flaps.

You act like he took off using flaps. Yet not once can you explain why he would violate the written check list he used to take off.

It is not my problem, it is your problem to prove he used flaps. I just happen to know standard protocol for that airplane.

And if I proved it to you, you would just piss and moan that I did not prove it.

Truthfully, this has been a bit of fun yanking your chain but really, one can't teach a potato how to understand. You are not even a trained pilot yet you think you can argue with a pilot. That takes punk ass attitude. And you have punk ass attitude in spades.

You wanted to know what my pistol is then you proceeded to act as if you are my authority.

[Marcus Aurelius]

I can't prove you wear shoes to work or to town ... But i am quite certain ou do. Currently barefoot.

Your problem is you can't spot what it looks like when one takes off in the Piper with flaps. Immaterial.

You act like he took off using flaps. Yet not once can you explain why he would violate the written check list he used to take off. Incorrect. I act like you made a statement of fact, which is not proven by the video you claimed proved it.

It is not my problem, it is your problem to prove he used flaps. You made the statement that the video PROVED it. It does not. It is YOUR JOB to prove what YOU say, dumb ass.

I just happen to know standard protocol for that airplane. Standard protocol isn't proof of a specific statement YOU made. Prove he did not deviate from protocol.

And if I proved it to you, you would just piss and moan that I did not prove it. So, you admit you did NOT prove it. That's a step forward for you, dumb ass.

Truthfully, this has been a bit of fun yanking your chain but really, one can't teach a potato how to understand. You are not even a trained pilot yet you think you can argue with a pilot. That takes punk ass attitude. And you have punk ass attitude in spades.

You wanted to know what my pistol is then you proceeded to act as if you are my authority.


Last comment is red ends the debate. You admit you did not PROVE it in the OP. Congrats.

[logroller]

I feel like I've heard that wind gusts can cause planes to roll and I wonder if having flaps set adds to the risk of such occurring. Anyone every heard of this?

[Marcus Aurelius]

I feel like I've heard that wind gusts can cause planes to roll and I wonder if having flaps set adds to the risk of such occurring. Anyone every heard of this?

According to FirstFlight.com...

http://www.firstflight.com/lessons/flt07.htm


In windy conditions, it may be appropriate to use a higher approach speed and, under gusty conditions, some pilots prefer to use less than full flaps.

[Robert A Whit]

I feel like I've heard that wind gusts can cause planes to roll and I wonder if having flaps set adds to the risk of such occurring. Anyone every heard of this?

Normally they tie them down. But say one is taxiing to the run up area.

The run up area is short of the runway and out of the way of other planes wanting to use the runway.

At tower airports, we call ATIS to get weather and the barometer setting so we can calibrate the altimeter and know the wind speed and direction. Were it up to me, in winds heavy enough to roll the airplane, I would not fly. Winds headed at the airplane won't usually cause it to roll.

When one needs a bit more lift than ordinary, they use flaps. As I reported, when I fly the 201 Mooney, and it's been since 11/1981 since I flew that airplane, it calls for 15 degrees of flaps on take off. I would not park the airplane with flaps set or in other words do not set flaps to park and tie down.

[Robert A Whit]

Airplanes on approach are not rolling.

Just saying.

[Robert A Whit]

Hey dumbass, maybe had you read ALL of my OP, you would not look so dumb.

Dumbass

To wit:

To understand my posts, accept them as opinions. Opinions over issues are not confrontation. Your opinion is no less than my opinion is. If you think that is right, then feel free to always agree with me. TY

[Marcus Aurelius]

Hey dumbass, maybe had you read ALL of my OP, you would not look so dumb.

Dumbass

To wit:

To understand my posts, accept them as opinions. Opinions over issues are not confrontation. Your opinion is no less than my opinion is. If you think that is right, then feel free to always agree with me. TY


Here's the content of 'all of your your OP'...

You may see what it is like to pilot this aircraft. By the way, notice he does not use flaps to take off.


You did not give an opinion, you stated it as fact. You've already admitted you did not prove this, so I'm not sure what your on about now.

Unless, after over 50 posts in this thread, with you bellowing that it was a fact he used no flaps on that video takeoff, you now suddenly want to revert to 'it's just an opinion'.

[aboutime]

Marcus. After all this time of listening to the endless Robert kind of near childishness. I now wish to apologize for daring to bring up, or mention the topic of FLAPS.

This thread has become nothing short of a quick trip through the Imaginary World of CHUCKY CHEEZE on Robert steroids kind of BS.

Of course. My apology will go without notice. Since Robert will lose a source of the "ME COMPLEX" he has perpetuated here. If for no other reason than to always prove. Only he can be right about every topic. While everyone else has no opportunity to express themselves WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF ROBERT.

Please accept my deepest apologies for daring to offer any kind of opinion here.
How terrible of me to think, or believe a FORUM such as this is limited to only ONE member.
Thanks for your time.

Aboutime!

[logroller]

All this bickering has got me wondering now. So it appears that flaps are more typically used when landing. Obviously it depends on the aircraft; large passenger jets use flaps on takeoff, likely due to longer takeoff distances being required. But so far as smal planes, I've found that it also varies with wing position, high or low. (Haven quite got my head around that yet) but for either, the lift envelope varies about the wing and flaps affect the location of the lift on the wing itself. When flaps are engaged, the lift envelope is further in, closer to the CG of fuselage (center of gravity) and this means more instability. To correct this, flight controls (aileron???) benefit from more airspeed, so upon takeoff less flap is better.

as I am coming to understand, This is more pronounced on upper wing aircraft whose wing is more exposed thanks to less disturbance of oncoming air from the fuselage, but is somehow self-correcting, especially in cross wind conditions. As the plane yaws, air builds up under the "armpit" of the wing on the yaw side, reducing lift on that side and reducing roll risk. Whereas a low wing configuration allows the air....shit I don't know. I need to find a diagram.

[Robert A Whit]

Dumbass says :You did not give an opinion, you stated it as fact. You've already admitted you did not prove this, so I'm not sure what your on about now.

Unless, after over 50 posts in this thread, with you bellowing that it was a fact he used no flaps on that video takeoff, you now suddenly want to revert to 'it's just an opinion'.

Hey dumbass, It is my opinion as I first stated. Then you picked a fight, as usual.

I told you standard procedure is that on paved runways, the pilot uses zero flap setting.

But you wanted to pick one more of your dumb ass fights. Something is wrong with you. You are not even a pilot yet you picked a fight with one.

Go take flight lessons in the Piper Archer and tell me if the instructor tells you to put down flaps on a paved runway with a perfectly normal take off.

[aboutime]

All this bickering has got me wondering now. So it appears that flaps are more typically used when landing. Obviously it depends on the aircraft; large passenger jets use flaps on takeoff, likely due to longer takeoff distances being required. But so far as smal planes, I've found that it also varies with wing position, high or low. (Haven quite got my head around that yet) but for either, the lift envelope varies about the wing and flaps affect the location of the lift on the wing itself. When flaps are engaged, the lift envelope is further in, closer to the CG of fuselage (center of gravity) and this means more instability. To correct this, flight controls (aileron???) benefit from more airspeed, so upon takeoff less flap is better.

as I am coming to understand, This is more pronounced on upper wing aircraft whose wing is more exposed thanks to less disturbance of oncoming air from the fuselage, but is somehow self-correcting, especially in cross wind conditions. As the plane yaws, air builds up under the "armpit" of the wing on the yaw side, reducing lift on that side and reducing roll risk. Whereas a low wing configuration allows the air....shit I don't know. I need to find a diagram.


logroller. The simple answer to your questions must be. Physics, and the Weather conditions observed by the pilots of ANY aircraft.
They alone decide whether the use of Flaps is required, as determined by the weather, length of runway available, and weight of the aircraft.
Those are all the Physical Properties of Physics used to land, and take off.
All of the confusion, and endless arguments about whether TO USE, or NOT USE flaps is just silliness. That's it.
Talk to any pilot. And each one will have a different view, or idea as to when Flaps will be used.
Otherwise.
You, and everyone else only needs to go to Google, or a Library, and ask the question:

"How does an AIRPLANE fly?"

[Marcus Aurelius]

Hey dumbass, It is my opinion as I first stated. Then you picked a fight, as usual.

I told you standard procedure is that on paved runways, the pilot uses zero flap setting.

But you wanted to pick one more of your dumb ass fights. Something is wrong with you. You are not even a pilot yet you picked a fight with one.

Go take flight lessons in the Piper Archer and tell me if the instructor tells you to put down flaps on a paved runway with a perfectly normal take off.

Here's the content of 'all of your your OP'...

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=650518#post650518)

You may see what it is like to pilot this aircraft. By the way, notice he does not use flaps to take off.



You did not give an opinion, you stated it as fact. You've already admitted you did not prove this, so I'm not sure what your on about now.

Unless, after over 50 posts in this thread, with you bellowing that it was a fact he used no flaps on that video takeoff, you now suddenly want to revert to 'it's just an opinion'.

[aboutime]

Anyone else get the feeling that this thread has become another FEBRUARY 2nd? 5218

[Robert A Whit]

All this bickering has got me wondering now. So it appears that flaps are more typically used when landing. Obviously it depends on the aircraft; large passenger jets use flaps on takeoff, likely due to longer takeoff distances being required. But so far as smal planes, I've found that it also varies with wing position, high or low. (Haven quite got my head around that yet) but for either, the lift envelope varies about the wing and flaps affect the location of the lift on the wing itself. When flaps are engaged, the lift envelope is further in, closer to the CG of fuselage (center of gravity) and this means more instability. To correct this, flight controls (aileron???) benefit from more airspeed, so upon takeoff less flap is better.

as I am coming to understand, This is more pronounced on upper wing aircraft whose wing is more exposed thanks to less disturbance of oncoming air from the fuselage, but is somehow self-correcting, especially in cross wind conditions. As the plane yaws, air builds up under the "armpit" of the wing on the yaw side, reducing lift on that side and reducing roll risk. Whereas a low wing configuration allows the air....shit I don't know. I need to find a diagram.

Were it up to me, there would be no bickering. I respond kindly to actual decent questions.

I don't like to land without using flaps. Since the video shows the Piper Archer AKA PA181, and since the aircraft carries a check list and since pilots use check lists, and the check list calls for zero flaps on take off, naturally the assumption used is that they performed a normal take off. Nothing in the video shows other than a normal take off.

Now to your points.

I know no reason to not use flaps when landing. My daughter was being trained to pilot the Cessna 150 and her instructor told her to not use flaps to land. This upset me at the time.

I have not flown a commercial jet but know they do use flaps on takeoff and landings. I can ask a commercial pilot to explain the use of flaps on take off for commercial jets.

Commercial jets consume much more runway than the small airplanes do. They weigh many tons whereas the small plane can weigh under one ton.

We have what is called ground effect as a factor, and while in training I was told that the high wing aircraft don't get as good ground effect as do the low wings, such as the planes I qualified to pilot, they get some. I believe ground effect helps a smoother landing.

You said:
But so far as smal planes, I've found that it also varies with wing position, high or low. (Haven quite got my head around that yet) but for either, the lift envelope varies about the wing and flaps affect the location of the lift on the wing itself. When flaps are engaged, the lift envelope is further in, closer to the CG of fuselage (center of gravity) and this means more instability. To correct this, flight controls (aileron???) benefit from more airspeed, so upon takeoff less flap is better.

High wing airplanes have their wings closer to the upper level of the ground effect than low winds do. I am not qualified in high wing aircraft and had best keep my powder dry since all of my pilot experience is in low wing aircraft. I am not clear why you said the lift envelope varies but perhaps you found this on a good site. The flaps do effect the envelope performance. I had to read it twice and you are correct to say the envelope is closer to the CG. I have no data to show the instability but perhaps you are correct. I will see what I can find in my pilots books.

All control surfaces benefit from more airspeed up to a point. We have directions of a speed to never exceed. I will also try to find from Piper why they specify no flaps on a normal take off and it is a very good question.

Let me put it this way on low wings. When one flies with an instructor, the instructors that I used had gab sessions prior and post flight. Some of mine did it at the FBO offices.

We are drilled to rely on the check list. This is why I said the pilot in the video used no flaps. It would be very strange given he put it on youtube and did not mention short field or soft field take off, and visually as a pilot I can see what he saw in the video and realize normal take off calls for no flaps, gave my opinion (every post I make states for those who read, it is my opinion) he used no flaps. I showed a video of the Mooney 201 and notice I did not claim he took off not using flaps. I use flaps at take off with the low wing Mooney 201 but damn it, i have not flown the Mooney since 1981.

Note. The charges to fly these airplanes can really be high. Once I became a pilot, I did not want to waste a lot of money just hobby flying. I got my pilots license to fly in real estate deals. I flew down to Fresno, CA to meet Anthony Washington of the Washington Redskins to carry his closing papers when I sold him a home and figured it could be a special feature i could offer.
I logged 1.5 hrs to Fresno on 7/4/84 to Fresno but 1.2 hours return. By car, that trip would have taken me all day long.

I also joined the CA Real Estate Flyers and would fly all over for monthly lunches.

But the bill to fly is not cheap. Fuel as you know is very high. My last flight in 1998 cost me $238 for 1.3 hr flight time with the instructor plus .5 hour for ground school. And in that bill I purchased a professional head set for $105.00. So just the flying dual cost me $113,10

Cross wind landings should not be done when the wind is too high so one best not land in high wind conditions or plan to locate a distant airport with favorable winds to land at.

Part of flight training is in the winds one does not like to take off in or land in.

[Marcus Aurelius]

My signature pretty much sums up the thread.

[aboutime]

Were it up to me, there would be no bickering. I respond kindly to actual decent questions.

I don't like to land without using flaps. Since the video shows the Piper Archer AKA PA181, and since the aircraft carries a check list and since pilots use check lists, and the check list calls for zero flaps on take off, naturally the assumption used is that they performed a normal take off. Nothing in the video shows other than a normal take off.

Now to your points.

I know no reason to not use flaps when landing. My daughter was being trained to pilot the Cessna 150 and her instructor told her to not use flaps to land. This upset me at the time.

I have not flown a commercial jet but know they do use flaps on takeoff and landings. I can ask a commercial pilot to explain the use of flaps on take off for commercial jets.

Commercial jets consume much more runway than the small airplanes do. They weigh many tons whereas the small plane can weigh under one ton.

We have what is called ground effect as a factor, and while in training I was told that the high wing aircraft don't get as good ground effect as do the low wings, such as the planes I qualified to pilot, they get some. I believe ground effect helps a smoother landing.

You said:

High wing airplanes have their wings closer to the upper level of the ground effect than low winds do. I am not qualified in high wing aircraft and had best keep my powder dry since all of my pilot experience is in low wing aircraft. I am not clear why you said the lift envelope varies but perhaps you found this on a good site. The flaps do effect the envelope performance. I had to read it twice and you are correct to say the envelope is closer to the CG. I have no data to show the instability but perhaps you are correct. I will see what I can find in my pilots books.

All control surfaces benefit from more airspeed up to a point. We have directions of a speed to never exceed. I will also try to find from Piper why they specify no flaps on a normal take off and it is a very good question.

Let me put it this way on low wings. When one flies with an instructor, the instructors that I used had gab sessions prior and post flight. Some of mine did it at the FBO offices.

We are drilled to rely on the check list. This is why I said the pilot in the video used no flaps. It would be very strange given he put it on youtube and did not mention short field or soft field take off, and visually as a pilot I can see what he saw in the video and realize normal take off calls for no flaps, gave my opinion (every post I make states for those who read, it is my opinion) he used no flaps. I showed a video of the Mooney 201 and notice I did not claim he took off not using flaps. I use flaps at take off with the low wing Mooney 201 but damn it, i have not flown the Mooney since 1981.

Note. The charges to fly these airplanes can really be high. Once I became a pilot, I did not want to waste a lot of money just hobby flying. I got my pilots license to fly in real estate deals. I flew down to Fresno, CA to meet Anthony Washington of the Washington Redskins to carry his closing papers when I sold him a home and figured it could be a special feature i could offer.
I logged 1.5 hrs to Fresno on 7/4/84 to Fresno but 1.2 hours return. By car, that trip would have taken me all day long.

I also joined the CA Real Estate Flyers and would fly all over for monthly lunches.

But the bill to fly is not cheap. Fuel as you know is very high. My last flight in 1998 cost me $238 for 1.3 hr flight time with the instructor plus .5 hour for ground school. And in that bill I purchased a professional head set for $105.00. So just the flying dual cost me $113,10

Cross wind landings should not be done when the wind is too high so one best not land in high wind conditions or plan to locate a distant airport with favorable winds to land at.

Part of flight training is in the winds one does not like to take off in or land in.


REALLY ROBERT? If you are the pilot you claim to be. What do you need across your wings in order to gain altitude?????

[Robert A Whit]

REALLY ROBERT? If you are the pilot you claim to be. What do you need across your wings in order to gain altitude?????

Why use the words "claim to be"????

Airflow is what one needs which is why I said flying faster improves control surface control.

I suspect were it you, you would claim to be something, oh let's say you claim you spent years in the navy yet I have never ripped you for your claims.

[Robert A Whit]

A really good lifelong friend designed airplanes so I called him today.

I asked him why the large airplanes use flaps on take off. He said that the normal wing on those Jets is a high performance wing since they fly well over 500 mph. The high performance wing does not fly well at take off speedx so needs more lift which is provided by flaps. We discussed slats as well but the general issue over the use of flaps to take off or not is wing design factors.

He told me that I had to use 15 degrees flaps on the Mooney 201 since it flies faster than the Piper Archer thus the wing needs flaps to gain lift at take off speeds.

The wing design of the Piper Archer is designed for slower speeds so it does not need flaps on normal take offs.

Since my video shows a normal take off and since the check list calls for no flaps, I proved the pilot used no flaps.

Frankly I don't give a shit what a Dr. Who turd thinks of my posts. I know the normal take off configuration of the PA-181 and if he does not like it, tough shit.

[aboutime]

Why use the words "claim to be"????

Airflow is what one needs which is why I said flying faster improves control surface control.

I suspect were it you, you would claim to be something, oh let's say you claim you spent years in the navy yet I have never ripped you for your claims.



WIND is what I hoped you would say. But, as usual, and instead. Just more HOT AIR...WIND from you, looking for more reasons to start yet, another argument that means nothing unless YOU GET THE ATTENTION you so desperately need, and require all the time.

[Marcus Aurelius]

A really good lifelong friend designed airplanes so I called him today...

Oh good God... now you suddenly have a lifelong friend who just happened to design airplanes? Geez. What next? You knew Neil Armstrong and was a pall bearer at his funeral?

[aboutime]

Oh good God... now you suddenly have a lifelong friend who just happened to design airplanes? Geez. What next? You knew Neil Armstrong and was a pall bearer at his funeral?


Marcus. Funny you should ask him that. I was waiting to hear about Amelia Earhart being his date before she got Lost.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Marcus. Funny you should ask him that. I was waiting to hear about Amelia Earhart being his date before she got Lost.

I think the navigator was more his style.

[aboutime]

I think the navigator was more his style.


Oh, sure. So Robert and Fred Noonan were a pair? Good thing they didn't have the Internet then. Imagine San Francisco, mourning another beloved, closet-eer???

[Robert A Whit]

WIND is what I hoped you would say. But, as usual, and instead. Just more HOT AIR...WIND from you, looking for more reasons to start yet, another argument that means nothing unless YOU GET THE ATTENTION you so desperately need, and require all the time.

You claim you were in the Navy so I leave all the wind to you. You are so desperate for attention you dog my posts and tell lies about me.

[Robert A Whit]

My friend, check post 74 where I updated information for you.

[Robert A Whit]

Marcus

I will ask you a series of questions about post number one showing the youtube of the pilot leading up and taking off.

The Pilot said he has PAPA

I know what that means.

Explain to the rest of us what it means?

I also plan to use the video to prove he took off using no flaps.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=650921#post650921)


http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=650917#post650917) ...And if I proved it to you, you would just piss and moan that I did not prove it...
So, you admit you did NOT prove it. That's a step forward for you, dumb ass.



Last comment is red ends the debate. You admit you did not PROVE it in the OP. Congrats.


you already lost the argument. Have some dignity.

[Robert A Whit]

Had the pilot used flaps, he would have been airborne sooner and when taking off flaps, what do you think would happen Marcus?

[Robert A Whit]

you already lost the argument. Have some dignity.

I have time to fuck with you now.

Answer the questions i ask you.

You have a slight chance to redeem yourself.

Refuse and you lost as know you already did.

[Marcus Aurelius]

I have time to fuck with you now.

Answer the questions i ask you.

You have a slight chance to redeem yourself.

Refuse and you lost as know you already did.

I asked you repeatedly to show the exact part of the video which PROVED flaps were not used... you refused each time to do so.

You admitted (see sig) that you had not already proved it.

You're just trying to prolong this or get it thrown into the Cage because fewer people will see how badly you fucked yourself here.

You lost. Live with it.

[aboutime]

You claim you were in the Navy so I leave all the wind to you. You are so desperate for attention you dog my posts and tell lies about me.


Unfortunately for you Robert. I have no desire, or need to make any claims about anything to you, or for you. Look at how you use the words I used, as you sound more like a Five year old, arguing over somebody using your toys without permission. Please feel free to make any claims you like. I have no need to tell any lies about you.
You do quite well on your own.

[Robert A Whit]

Unfortunately for you Robert. I have no desire, or need to make any claims about anything to you, or for you. Look at how you use the words I used, as you sound more like a Five year old, arguing over somebody using your toys without permission. Please feel free to make any claims you like. I have no need to tell any lies about you.
You do quite well on your own.

In the space of moments, you just had to tell lies.

[Robert A Whit]

I asked you repeatedly to show the exact part of the video which PROVED flaps were not used... you refused each time to do so.

So, it is your contention I must prove something to you? Of course I refuse. You are a dumbass.

You admitted (see sig) that you had not already proved it.

That is not what was said. I said If I prove it... not that I had not proven it.

You're just trying to prolong this or get it thrown into the Cage because fewer people will see how badly you fucked yourself here.

You lost. Live with it.

No, you are asked some very real questions to test your knowledge of flying. I told you the video proved it finally but you still refuse to understand. When I posted the video, I knew he had not used flaps but since you think you are the expert, you refused to understand.

Don't blame me for you being a dumbass.

Robert in red

[Marcus Aurelius]

No, you are asked some very real questions to test your knowledge of flying. I told you the video proved it finally but you still refuse to understand. When I posted the video, I knew he had not used flaps but since you think you are the expert, you refused to understand.

Don't blame me for you being a dumbass.

Robert in red

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lt7137rXvc1r17215o1_500.gif

Spin, Whitless, spin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :laugh2:

[Robert A Whit]

Marcus

I asked you to tell us all what happens when an Archer takes off using flaps.

You refused to reply.

I asked you what happens when the pilot resets flaps to zero.

Again you refused.

How can you claim victory when you have no idea what I am discussing?

The PA28-181 that is in the Video gave no appearance of having used flaps. The aircraft would have been up in the air a lot sooner than it was.

And further, and this is my proof, had the pilot set the flaps back to zero once he got airborne, you would notice what I asked you. And you punted.

What one would see at roughly minute 2:20-2:45 would have been a sudden sinking of the airplane. The flaps once removed cause the airplane to lose lift ergo a dip happens.

So you lost.

Why don't you go ask a flight instructor?

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lt7137rXvc1r17215o1_500.gif

Spin, Whitless, spin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :laugh2:

[Robert A Whit]

This time the pilot uses flaps. He is doing a SHORT FIELD TAKE OFF

Logroller, look at post 1`and compare it to this post.

It is easy to see by his rapid take off he used flaps and look at the pilots reaction. Notice the nose is also higher. Watch it and you can see the plane dip a bit when he retracts flaps.

This ought to shut Marcus up but will it?


http://youtu.be/jny3B2bM0Zw

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lt7137rXvc1r17215o1_500.gif

Spin, Whitless, spin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :laugh2:

[Robert A Whit]

I told you what you would do when I proved it to you and just as I predicted, you are now denying this.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lt7137rXvc1r17215o1_500.gif

Spin, Whitless, spin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :laugh2:

[logroller]

Are there any birds, like real birds w/feathers, that have a low wing?
Low wing aircraft are an unnatural abomination. :poke:

[Marcus Aurelius]

Are there any birds, like real birds w/feathers, that have a low wing?
Low wing aircraft are an unnatural abomination. :poke:

http://weheartvintage.co/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/1930s_flying_contraption_wings.jpg

[Robert A Whit]

Are there any birds, like real birds w/feathers, that have a low wing?
Low wing aircraft are an unnatural abomination. :poke:

LOL

Airplanes are not flapping their wings like birds to keep flying. I prefer low wings for several reasons. When I come in to land, the wing is not obstructing the airport runway. As I get close to the ground, the ground effect help landings be smoother. I find I can see airplanes above me easier.

For bush flying the high wings have some advantages, such as clearing vegetation as you land that a low wing might hit.

[Marcus Aurelius]

LOL

Airplanes are not flapping their wings like birds to keep flying. I prefer low wings for several reasons. When I come in to land, the wing is not obstructing the airport runway. As I get close to the ground, the ground effect help landings be smoother. I find I can see airplanes above me easier.

For bush flying the high wings have some advantages, such as clearing vegetation as you land that a low wing might hit.

both designs have visibility issues, for different reasons. One is not inherently better than the other.

Here...educate yourself...

http://stoenworks.com/High%20wing,%20Low%20wing.html


Picture yourself sitting in a single-engine airplane without wings. The view in front is obstructed only by the engine cowling. How about up? Same thing, what with the view being limited only by how far up the windshield curves. And to the rear? Not a great view, but available. Now, let's put some wings on this imaginary bird of ours.

Let's put them on the top first. Hmmm, no changes so far, except to the side. Oh, that's a big except. When you look to the left or right and up, you can't see anything but aluminum. The view down is great though. OK, let's put those wings on the bottom of the airplane. Now we have just the opposite situation. You can see the sky just great, but looking down is another matter. Well, this is all pretty straight forward so far, but how does it relate to the two design styles propensity to run into one another when landing?
Let's take our wing-less aircraft and place it on the downwind leg of an airport traffic pattern. Any airplanes out there? If there are, in our wingless bird you'll most likely see them. Now, let's put the wings on the top. If there is conflicting traffic above you, most likely it will be obstructed by those big wings. Down below you any traffic is easy to pick out. Swap the wings to the bottom, and you have the opposite situation.
Now we get into the tricky and dangerous part. Make the turn from the downwind leg to the base leg. In your low-wing bird the entire area to your right that is the final approach course is obstructed by the wing.
And that is where the airplane that you are going to collide with is located.
Put the wing on top and make the same turn, downwind to base. Oh, what a view. You can see the sky to your right, but you can't see inside the turn because the wing is down and obstructing your view.
That's where your date with destiny is flying.
Let's make the turn from base to final. Our high-wing airplane has a great clearing view of the sky above and to your right (we're flying a standard left-hand pattern). But down and to the left? You don't have a chance. With the low-wing as you turn base to final, you can see just the opposite- down and to the left is good, up and to the right is just aluminum. Aluminum that is blocking your view of the intruder that awaits you. Now we're on final. The high-wing airplane is below, and can't see any conflicting traffic. The low-wing airplane is above, happy as a clam thinking that the area is clear of any landing aircraft.
The sickening crunch, and its aftermath are a foregone conclusion.

[Robert A Whit]

I am well aware of the limitations of both wings; high vs low wings.

Do not tell me to educate myself when it is you being educated.


I stand by my remarks. Normal flight offers good views but the high wing airplane, in climb, could be blind to either side and not see another airplane in certain spots. I prefer a vew that lets me see forward and to both sides as one climbs.

Descending the problem is more acute in the low wing since the pilot may miss an airplane moving much faster.

I get a kick out of a non pilot, with no training, trying to educate a pilot.

When landing the reason I prefer low wings has to do with the landing pattern where as you turn in this case, to the left, for crosswind, the wing has fallen away fully exposing the runway and traffic. Anyway, Pilots have various preferences and I just happen to prefer the low wing.

Maybe had I trained in say a Cessna, I might want the high wing. But as I said, in the Bush low wings can pose a hazard if large shrubs or other obstacles on the ground are present. The high wing can clear such obstacles the low wing might hit.

[Marcus Aurelius]

I am well aware of the limitations of both wings; high vs low wings.

Do not tell me to educate myself when it is you being educated.


I stand by my remarks. Normal flight offers good views but the high wing airplane, in climb, could be blind to either side and not see another airplane in certain spots. I prefer a vew that lets me see forward and to both sides as one climbs.

Descending the problem is more acute in the low wing since the pilot may miss an airplane moving much faster.

I get a kick out of a non pilot, with no training, trying to educate a pilot.

When landing the reason I prefer low wings has to do with the landing pattern where as you turn in this case, to the left, for crosswind, the wing has fallen away fully exposing the runway and traffic. Anyway, Pilots have various preferences and I just happen to prefer the low wing.

Maybe had I trained in say a Cessna, I might want the high wing. But as I said, in the Bush low wings can pose a hazard if large shrubs or other obstacles on the ground are present. The high wing can clear such obstacles the low wing might hit.

You just contradicted yourself, dumb ass.

You previously stated...

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=651127#post651127)

...I prefer low wings for several reasons. When I come in to land, the wing is not obstructing the airport runway. ...
You're claiming low wings do not obstruct the runway view.... down... when landing.

Yet here...

...Descending the problem is more acute in the low wing since the pilot may miss an airplane moving much faster...
...which implies an obstructed view down... towards the runway... when landing.

Which is it?????:laugh2:

[Robert A Whit]

You just contradicted yourself, dumb ass.

No I did not.

You previously stated...

You're claiming low wings do not obstruct the runway view.... down... when landing.

Certainly since part of landing is banking. If you knew shit about flying, you would know that as you do the downwind part of the landing, as the wing dips when you move to crosswind, the wing falls below leaving a clear view of the runway. Naturally I said I was banking. Then from cross wind to upwind to land, again you see the runway. Visabilty to the right of course is not good but a banking high wing also has visibilty blocked to the right. The high wing blocks part of the runway during landings.

Yet here...

...which implies an obstructed view down... towards the runway... when landing.

Which is it?????:laugh2:

We can't see under the airplane and when I descend there are parts of the sky that is blocked with either wing. When i wrote of descending, I was not speaking of being at the airport. This does not mean I am saying that upon landing I am not descending since I know how you operate, but that we spend a lot more time just descending than landing. In one case I speak of landing but the other case is just losing altitude.

Try educating yourself by going to ground school as I did and being educated as I was by various flight instructors. Maybe you will change that bad attitude.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=651158#post651158)
You just contradicted yourself, dumb ass.

No I did not.

You previously stated...

You're claiming low wings do not obstruct the runway view.... down... when landing.

Certainly since part of landing is banking. If you knew shit about flying, you would know that as you do the downwind part of the landing, as the wing dips when you move to crosswind, the wing falls below leaving a clear view of the runway. Naturally I said I was banking. Then from cross wind to upwind to land, again you see the runway. Visabilty to the right of course is not good but a banking high wing also has visibilty blocked to the right. The high wing blocks part of the runway during landings.

Yet here...

...which implies an obstructed view down... towards the runway... when landing.

Which is it????


We can't see under the airplane and when I descend there are parts of the sky that is blocked with either wing. When i wrote of descending, I was not speaking of being at the airport. This does not mean I am saying that upon landing I am not descending since I know how you operate, but that we spend a lot more time just descending than landing. In one case I speak of landing but the other case is just losing altitude.

Try educating yourself by going to ground school as I did and being educated as I was by various flight instructors. Maybe you will change that bad attitude.

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lt7137rXvc1r17215o1_500.gif

Spin, Whitless, spin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :laugh2:

[Robert A Whit]

Spin, Whitless, spin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :laugh2:

Why won't you get flight instruction so you know what you are talking about?

[Marcus Aurelius]

Why won't you get flight instruction so you know what you are talking about?

Everything I've posted is from credible resources that anyone can verify online within seconds. You got Al and Vernon, who are probably imaginary.

Keep spinning, Whitless... keep spinning.

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lt7137rXvc1r17215o1_500.gif

Spin, Whitless, spin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :laugh2:

[Robert A Whit]

Everything I've posted is from credible resources that anyone can verify online within seconds. You got Al and Vernon, who are probably imaginary.

Keep spinning, Whitless... keep spinning.



Spin, Whitless, spin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :laugh2:

No, I am a trained pilot. You got shit.

Reading articles is no substitute for actual piloting and flying many hours as well as executing many take off and landings.

If you actually had any demonstrated training, I might pay attention to your claims.

Al is also a trained pilot and Vernon made no mention of pilot training but Vernon retired after a long career designing many aircraft. I listen to him and he does nos spin by trying to get me to read Marcus selected articles.

You know Marcus, you really should learn then open that mouth.

I proved by showing you a youtube video of what it looks like to the pilot for a short field take off. I doubt you studied both it vs the first post where clearly to pilots, those two take offs were very different. But you love fighting.

I told you, the reader, the non pilot, that even proof is a thing you flat ignore. Then you put a lie in your tag line.

[Robert A Whit]

Hey Marcus, since you claim so much expertise from a quick search and read of your own articles, why don't you get to the nearest airport to announce to the FBO you are a fully qualified pilot and see if they allow you to fly.

As to my flying, I have all the paperwork, including my FAA license and they will welcome me to fly.

But hell, in your mind, you are the expert of flying and hell, all topics.

Oh, the FBO will also examine my pilots logbook to see what my experience is.

Why don't you buy a pilots logbook and try to fake it and see if they catch your crime.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Hey Marcus, since you claim so much expertise from a quick search and read of your own articles, why don't you get to the nearest airport to announce to the FBO you are a fully qualified pilot and see if they allow you to fly.

As to my flying, I have all the paperwork, including my FAA license and they will welcome me to fly.

But hell, in your mind, you are the expert of flying and hell, all topics.

Oh, the FBO will also examine my pilots logbook to see what my experience is.

Why don't you buy a pilots logbook and try to fake it and see if they catch your crime.

Please link to any post where I claimed expertise, dumb ass.:laugh2:
You claimed the last time you flew was 20 years ago, yet you now claim you'd be welcomed to fly today? :laugh2:

Your spin gets funnier and funnier. :laugh::laugh::laugh:

Also, I'm pretty sure suggesting someone commit a crime is against board rules, dumb ass.

[aboutime]

Please link to any post where I claimed expertise, dumb ass.:laugh2:
You claimed the last time you flew was 20 years ago, yet you now claim you'd be welcomed to fly today? :laugh2:

Your spin gets funnier and funnier. :laugh::laugh::laugh:

Also, I'm pretty sure suggesting someone commit a crime is against board rules, dumb ass.


Marcus. Robert is just using a familiar kind of liberal FLANKING action. Note how he instantly used the word expertise to defend himself against his DumbAssedness.
If memory serves me. Or better yet. Anyone takes a look at any of Robert's previous posts on any of the various threads, and topics. Almost without fail.
Robert has volunteered to claim his EXPERTISE in nearly every topic, subject, or idea...where during his long life. He has done, said, thought, designed, invented, practiced, wondered, labored, experimented, and challenged himself to almost EVERY conceivable topic known to man.
Almost like that old line about "Jack" being the "JACK" of all trades, and Master of None"...but Robert thinks he IS, MASTER OF ALL.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=651179#post651179)
Please link to any post where I claimed expertise, dumb ass.:laugh2:
You claimed the last time you flew was 20 years ago, yet you now claim you'd be welcomed to fly today? :laugh2:

Your spin gets funnier and funnier. :laugh::laugh::laugh:

Also, I'm pretty sure suggesting someone commit a crime is against board rules, dumb ass.



Marcus. Robert is just using a familiar kind of liberal FLANKING action. Note how he instantly used the word expertise to defend himself against his DumbAssedness.
If memory serves me. Or better yet. Anyone takes a look at any of Robert's previous posts on any of the various threads, and topics. Almost without fail.
Robert has volunteered to claim his EXPERTISE in nearly every topic, subject, or idea...where during his long life. He has done, said, thought, designed, invented, practiced, wondered, labored, experimented, and challenged himself to almost EVERY conceivable topic known to man.
Almost like that old line about "Jack" being the "JACK" of all trades, and Master of None"...but Robert thinks he IS, MASTER OF ALL.

Go look up the definition of narcissistic personality disorder on WebMD. They should add a picture of Robert. He has all the signs.

[aboutime]

Go look up the definition of narcissistic personality disorder on WebMD. They should add a picture of Robert. He has all the signs.


Marcus. Seriously. I'm afraid to look up that definition. God forbid, in my waning years...some of that rubbed off on me?

What would I do?......What would I do????