Take Off Flaps - 210
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Haven't had any takers to my question related to HH's post, FDK is not allowed.
Though a PM wouldn't go astray!
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: in a sorry state of permit-icitus
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
um um er um
likewise HH
- don't you hate it when you come back to the thread and the teacher is asking to hand in yesterdays homework
Have to admit - saw this thread re C210 and wasn't initially interested but saw some names and decided for a looksee - slow day.
Gaunty - can't admit to any C210 knowledge that would save myself in a aeroclub bitch fight - but based on current type - in answering your question - mind you I note a lot of silence from the usual suspects - to check one's takeooooff power one would need to check it against a known or precalculated value - in my case a minimum torque - that when selected allows one to get the performance extracted from the takeoff charts - which refer to "takeoff power". Any extra -well just make sure it's not over the max limit. Not sure if this is at all relevant to the ponderous question aimed at his thread... but as they say "I like to watch".
Just a side pointy
Power + Attitude + Configuration = Performance
- don't you hate it when you come back to the thread and the teacher is asking to hand in yesterdays homeworkHave to admit - saw this thread re C210 and wasn't initially interested but saw some names and decided for a looksee - slow day.
Gaunty - can't admit to any C210 knowledge that would save myself in a aeroclub bitch fight - but based on current type - in answering your question - mind you I note a lot of silence from the usual suspects - to check one's takeooooff power one would need to check it against a known or precalculated value - in my case a minimum torque - that when selected allows one to get the performance extracted from the takeoff charts - which refer to "takeoff power". Any extra -well just make sure it's not over the max limit. Not sure if this is at all relevant to the ponderous question aimed at his thread... but as they say "I like to watch".
Just a side pointy
Power + Attitude + Configuration = Performance
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Australia
Age: 44
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
kind of makes pprune pointless if you can't give advice and share experiences and ideas freely 
i thought thats what it is about, or is it more to bag your last employer out.......
ITCZ, You are very wrong. Please don't assume you know me
i thought thats what it is about, or is it more to bag your last employer out.......
You are low time, presumably male, mid-twenties, and in GA. You have a bit of time under your belt now, and you are starting to have a few 'ideas' of your own about how things can be done.
Bugsmasherdriverandjediknite
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Bai, mi go long hap na kisim sampla samting.
Posts: 2,849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forktail Dr Killer = imposter ??
Quote:
I have even used full flap (start the TO roll with zero flap and stick the flap lever all the way down at 50 kts) to get off on a really hot day or to get off a wet strip, where the approaches were clear of obstacles.
yeah right?? You are waaaaaaaaaaay off the back of the power and any other curve.
Quote:
A C210 will leap back into the air when you shove the go button all the way in
not any C210 I've flown and that includes more new ones than you have ever seen.
Quote:
I have even used full flap (start the TO roll with zero flap and stick the flap lever all the way down at 50 kts) to get off on a really hot day or to get off a wet strip, where the approaches were clear of obstacles.
yeah right?? You are waaaaaaaaaaay off the back of the power and any other curve.
Quote:
A C210 will leap back into the air when you shove the go button all the way in
not any C210 I've flown and that includes more new ones than you have ever seen.
) I would have to agree with the DR's points. Regardless of what the "P" charts tell ya, the 210 will get up early with a bunch of flap applied in a hurry...... the performance falls of quite quickly once out of ground effect, but it works to get ya up off the rough stuff in a hurry.............. and I've been known to pole a few of them 210's around a bit too. You wouldn't wanna know what a really old 310 will do contrary to the "P" charts.
206 wing is hi lift - 210 wing is high speed. (Especially in the strutless 210s - which I think is the G model and later)
It was 90lbs (that looks and sounds so much better than 40Kg) heavier and went 2kts quicker. High speed wing? Sorry, but no.
but the couple that I have flown most recently were SLOW compared to the V35B. I have never caught ATC off guard with a burst of downhill speed from a 210 like the Bo turns on
Join Date: May 2007
Location: The House
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
20' degrees is the go. If I hadn't used the get off slow clean up later technique I'd be tangled up in the railway girder horse pens at the end of Anna Creek Station's boggy strip. Works a treat. Weight obviously decreases performance however it is the method to get a 210 out of just about anywhere.
20 Flap
Full power
start unsticking the nose wheel(slight backpressure) at about 40 knots
let it fly itself off, should be around 60 odd.
Get the nose down and get the speed up.
Fly away and clean up.
20 Flap
Full power
start unsticking the nose wheel(slight backpressure) at about 40 knots
let it fly itself off, should be around 60 odd.
Get the nose down and get the speed up.
Fly away and clean up.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forktail Dr Killer
aaaah V35 eh,
is why they are often referred to as, well, Forktail Dr Killers. 210s can do the same thing to you as well, different process but for the same reason with the same result. The last time it happened to a C210 was near Cloncurry if I recall correctly. The US landscape is littered with V35s. Yes they are fast, but there is, as usual, a price.
Now listen here young Wiz.
Of course;
as will any type up to and including the A380, more so the low wing because they are even further into ground effect.
= true, but its got nuffin to do with the P charts. Ruff field technique? the object is to get the wheels off'n the ground and stop the bangin 'n stuff, why not stay in ground effect until you accelerate then if something does go wrong you put it back down again.
Apart from being waaay off the back of any curves you like to mention, the insurance company just tore up your policy.
Cant remember now what the POH says, but I dont recall any such technique as "a bunch of flap applied in a hurry"
Besides I do enjoy having the odd beer wiv yez.
Muffinman
Dont need any of that fancy torque thingummies, everything you need to assure yourself that you are getting maximum available power at TO is right there on the instrument panel, why even FTDKs have em.
aaaah V35 eh,
I have never caught ATC off guard with a burst of downhill speed from a 210 like the Bo turns on.
Now listen here young Wiz.
Of course;
Regardless of what the "P" charts tell ya, the 210 will get up early with a bunch of flap applied in a hurry......
the performance falls of quite quickly once out of ground effect, but it works to get ya up off the rough stuff in a hurry
Apart from being waaay off the back of any curves you like to mention, the insurance company just tore up your policy.
Cant remember now what the POH says, but I dont recall any such technique as "a bunch of flap applied in a hurry"
Besides I do enjoy having the odd beer wiv yez.
Muffinman
Dont need any of that fancy torque thingummies, everything you need to assure yourself that you are getting maximum available power at TO is right there on the instrument panel, why even FTDKs have em.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tinstaafl
and so you bloody well should.
now sit down and let somebody else work it out.
Gawd there's one in every class. Anyway you're the milk monitor today.
and so you bloody well should.
now sit down and let somebody else work it out.Gawd there's one in every class. Anyway you're the milk monitor today.
Grandpa Aerotart
Sorry to burst your bubble FDK, but a 210 with a 550 bolted to it drives right on past an A36. The A36 I fly trues at 173kts. The 550 210 that I've driven was 5 to 7 knots quicker than this with similar loads.
Milleniums have such improved airflow they typically produce 10+ more HP than an IO550 with other cylinders...which is 25+hp more than an IO520.
Both with 3 bladed props or did the Bo have a (rare these days) 2 blade?
The argument over whether 210s are generically faster than Bonanzas is just laughably silly because you'd need identical engines/props/ambient conditions/power settings etc to have any hope.
Even after all that one will be 7-10kts faster than the other...about 2 minute/100nm quicker.
Let's just accept that a 210 carries a bigger load and the Bonanza is nicer to fly
...and quicker
Last edited by Chimbu chuckles; 7th Jun 2007 at 15:40.
Grandpa Aerotart
I think the words of someone who has owned one of each are instructive..all numbers about 7 years old and relate to operating in the US.
High lighting and (note about bums) mine.
Hey FTDK... WE WIN!!!!!
I have owned five airplanes. The required Cessna 172, a Piper Arrow (a wonderful aircraft), a Cessna T182RG, a T210L and most recently my pride and joy, an A36 Bonanza.
The 182 was a maintenance nightmare. I sold it with tears in my eyes and quit flying because of the continuous problems. Six years later I got the flying bug again and I did what every smart person does who has trouble with a specific type of aircraft: I bought the same type, but bigger and more complex, older (19 years), with higher times (3200 TTAF, 950 SMOH) and more avionics to go wrong…yes!!! A turbocharged 210.
History repeated itself and I sold my T210 for the same reasons I dumped my T182RG, buying the A36 to replace it. This gives me the opportunity to provide a first-hand comparison between the 1975 T210L and a 1978 A36. There are good and bad points on each aircraft.
The biggest problem with the 210 was the constant maintenance. I just could not keep up with it. It was not really a matter of cost, but the actual maintenance scheduling and the constant hassle, almost a full-time job. I believe to own a “mature” high performance Cessna you need to be married to an A&P.
The gear wouldn’t come up four times and more importantly it did not want to come down twice. I had constant problems with the ARC Cessna avionics including an electrical fire. This is in addition to nuisance problems like flaps that would not come down, engine stoppages due to vapor lock…you know, little stuff. Thank God for Flight Safety training: without it I think I would have been a fatality statistic. I was afraid to touch anything because often it would come off in my hand.
The Bonanza, by comparison, has been perfect. Tight, no rattles, doors don’t blow open and everything seems to work. Flying the Cessna, I was becoming neurotic, expecting equipment failure at any moment and constantly watching for falling debris.
The 210 was fast at 162 knots, 65 percent power on 15.5 GPH. The A36 will do 171 knots on 14 GPH. I miss the 89 gallons of fuel on the 210: the A36’s 74 gallons seems inadequate. The Cessna is much more stable than the Beech. You put the nose down on the A36 and it really goes, right to yellow line.
Landings are easier in the Bonanza than the Cessna and the Beech seems to handle bumps better. It rides them out, versus the jolt you get in the 210. One item I thought I’d miss in the A36 was the Cessna’s rudder trim: it does not exist in the Beech. They must cant the engine, though, because it is not an issue and the ball stays fairly close to center during climbs.
I’ve always heard how the Bonanza line is a joy to fly, with well harmonized controls, a real “pilot’s airplane.” I personally prefer the stable, “garbage truck with a loose front end” feel of the Cessna. I would not want to fly the A36 without a working autopilot in IMC. The Cessna, no problem…which is good, because the Cessna autopilot doesn’t work all that often anyway. Also the first time I stalled the A36 I was surprised how it bites and falls off sharply. In normal flight the A36 is a delight; the 210 is stable and relaxing. I vote for the 210.
It really is interesting that the insurance company views the Bonanza as easier and less complicated to fly than the Cessna. I’m sure it’s because of the turbocharger, but hands-down, the Cessna is easier to fly. Insurance from the same carrier, by the way, was about the same cost for the two airplanes despite a hull value for the A36 of more than double that of the Cessna.
The Cessna wins on cabin comfort plus people ergonomics. You have a door on both sides, plus a wing that shelters you from the sun and rain. I also miss the center area for chart storage, lots of cubby holes for stuff (like the odd bits and pieces of the airplane that fall off) and, of course, the elbow room.
The payload on the 210 is much higher than the A36. The Beech with full fuel can carry 766 pounds, the Cessna with full fuel, 900. The normally aspirated model probably has another 100 pounds or so available. The CG problem you hear about on Bonanzas is not a real practical issue on the A36, but again the Cessna is better; you don’t even have to think about it for the most part.
I averaged about $17,300 per year on gas, maintenance and hangar for the Cessna. Looks like the Beech will be about $12,000, apples to apples. Is the cost disparity a fluke? Maybe, but I have two Cessna airplane data points over six years. For the flying I do, this works out to $192/hour for the 210 and about $105/hour for the A36.
I love my Beech. The emotion towards the 210 was disbelief that an airplane in which so much of the design and maintenance is regulated could be so problematical. It is actually less reliable than my 1951 Harley Davidson Panhead motorcycle, a machine not exactly known for its stellar reliability record. Both of my Cessnas have been worse…much worse. Was my Bonanza worth 2-1/2 times the purchase price of the Cessna? You bet!
Big roomy cabin makes the 210 an ideal four-placer, with plenty of space for baggage. The rear two seats are underkill in comfort. (Note with only 4 bums in even a Bo has massive baggage room)
I think the Beech is better made, has superior engineering, superb fit and finish, a metal panel, and you feel safe and secure. The windshield doesn’t even creak like in the 210. That used to scare my passengers, both pilot and non-pilot alike. The Beech is standing up to the ravages of time much better.
The 182 was a maintenance nightmare. I sold it with tears in my eyes and quit flying because of the continuous problems. Six years later I got the flying bug again and I did what every smart person does who has trouble with a specific type of aircraft: I bought the same type, but bigger and more complex, older (19 years), with higher times (3200 TTAF, 950 SMOH) and more avionics to go wrong…yes!!! A turbocharged 210.
History repeated itself and I sold my T210 for the same reasons I dumped my T182RG, buying the A36 to replace it. This gives me the opportunity to provide a first-hand comparison between the 1975 T210L and a 1978 A36. There are good and bad points on each aircraft.
The biggest problem with the 210 was the constant maintenance. I just could not keep up with it. It was not really a matter of cost, but the actual maintenance scheduling and the constant hassle, almost a full-time job. I believe to own a “mature” high performance Cessna you need to be married to an A&P.
The gear wouldn’t come up four times and more importantly it did not want to come down twice. I had constant problems with the ARC Cessna avionics including an electrical fire. This is in addition to nuisance problems like flaps that would not come down, engine stoppages due to vapor lock…you know, little stuff. Thank God for Flight Safety training: without it I think I would have been a fatality statistic. I was afraid to touch anything because often it would come off in my hand.
The Bonanza, by comparison, has been perfect. Tight, no rattles, doors don’t blow open and everything seems to work. Flying the Cessna, I was becoming neurotic, expecting equipment failure at any moment and constantly watching for falling debris.
The 210 was fast at 162 knots, 65 percent power on 15.5 GPH. The A36 will do 171 knots on 14 GPH. I miss the 89 gallons of fuel on the 210: the A36’s 74 gallons seems inadequate. The Cessna is much more stable than the Beech. You put the nose down on the A36 and it really goes, right to yellow line.
Landings are easier in the Bonanza than the Cessna and the Beech seems to handle bumps better. It rides them out, versus the jolt you get in the 210. One item I thought I’d miss in the A36 was the Cessna’s rudder trim: it does not exist in the Beech. They must cant the engine, though, because it is not an issue and the ball stays fairly close to center during climbs.
I’ve always heard how the Bonanza line is a joy to fly, with well harmonized controls, a real “pilot’s airplane.” I personally prefer the stable, “garbage truck with a loose front end” feel of the Cessna. I would not want to fly the A36 without a working autopilot in IMC. The Cessna, no problem…which is good, because the Cessna autopilot doesn’t work all that often anyway. Also the first time I stalled the A36 I was surprised how it bites and falls off sharply. In normal flight the A36 is a delight; the 210 is stable and relaxing. I vote for the 210.
It really is interesting that the insurance company views the Bonanza as easier and less complicated to fly than the Cessna. I’m sure it’s because of the turbocharger, but hands-down, the Cessna is easier to fly. Insurance from the same carrier, by the way, was about the same cost for the two airplanes despite a hull value for the A36 of more than double that of the Cessna.
The Cessna wins on cabin comfort plus people ergonomics. You have a door on both sides, plus a wing that shelters you from the sun and rain. I also miss the center area for chart storage, lots of cubby holes for stuff (like the odd bits and pieces of the airplane that fall off) and, of course, the elbow room.
The payload on the 210 is much higher than the A36. The Beech with full fuel can carry 766 pounds, the Cessna with full fuel, 900. The normally aspirated model probably has another 100 pounds or so available. The CG problem you hear about on Bonanzas is not a real practical issue on the A36, but again the Cessna is better; you don’t even have to think about it for the most part.
I averaged about $17,300 per year on gas, maintenance and hangar for the Cessna. Looks like the Beech will be about $12,000, apples to apples. Is the cost disparity a fluke? Maybe, but I have two Cessna airplane data points over six years. For the flying I do, this works out to $192/hour for the 210 and about $105/hour for the A36.
I love my Beech. The emotion towards the 210 was disbelief that an airplane in which so much of the design and maintenance is regulated could be so problematical. It is actually less reliable than my 1951 Harley Davidson Panhead motorcycle, a machine not exactly known for its stellar reliability record. Both of my Cessnas have been worse…much worse. Was my Bonanza worth 2-1/2 times the purchase price of the Cessna? You bet!
Big roomy cabin makes the 210 an ideal four-placer, with plenty of space for baggage. The rear two seats are underkill in comfort. (Note with only 4 bums in even a Bo has massive baggage room)
I think the Beech is better made, has superior engineering, superb fit and finish, a metal panel, and you feel safe and secure. The windshield doesn’t even creak like in the 210. That used to scare my passengers, both pilot and non-pilot alike. The Beech is standing up to the ravages of time much better.
Hey FTDK... WE WIN!!!!!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 725
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ITCZ, You are very wrong. Please don't assume you know me.
If you say things like...
something the test pilots never have the luxury of doing in there limited testing programs
Discussions about the potential capabilities of aircraft and how those capabilities might be employed in unusual situations is always attractive to pilots. The problem is that focussing on the unusual becomes an end in itself for some people. And I don't want to bury any more of them.
It might not be as sexy a concept, but true professionalism in CIVIL aviation is first and foremost based on knowledge and compliance with the normal operating envelope of the aeroplane, what Airbus system designers called the Green zone. Having strategies to recover an aircraft from undesired flight states back into the green zone is also part of our professional toolbox.
However, on at least four occasions I have sat and listened pilots speculating on the capabilities of their aircraft, and those pilots, thinking they were honing their professional skills, went out some time later and became truly 'at one' with their aeroplanes.. that is, their noses and eyeballs mashed into the broken glass and intricate gearing of their AH and ASI.
So I don't just sit quietly anymore when I hear similar thoughts expressed here. Consider yourself jumped on, deal with it, I would rather have you pissed off yet alive and alert to the fact that not everyone thinks your ideas are okay.
This thread is about entry level aeroplanes, and will be attracting a lot of interest from low time guys.
If you want to get to know your aeroplane, read the book. Don't go experimenting, and don't put your trust in the offhand remarks of some idiot that maybe has a whole 1,000hrs more than you.
You mean there's another way, Flinty? You should have told me! Any fool knows that the visors shake to buggery in a BN2 from engine start to engine stop. I tried for ages to see dust through the Shetland drizzle, sleet & snow. No, even when the pax started asking why we weren't moving with all that noise, still I waited for the dust cloud to appear.
That does it. You get to step on the weak bits next time we re-roof your shed. And you're not getting any milk at recess, either!
Nobody fools with Tinstaafl when he's the milk monitor.
That does it. You get to step on the weak bits next time we re-roof your shed. And you're not getting any milk at recess, either!
Nobody fools with Tinstaafl when he's the milk monitor.
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Muffinman not sure if it was 'parental assistance' or 'detention'!
I just got my homework back and it looks like a C+, good to see I am keeping up the Hughes average!
Interestingly, the 'cool kids' who were the major protagonists on page one, all seem to have dropped out of school!
Anyway back to my punishment, perhaps some of the cool kids might like to join in...
The POH is your friend.
The POH is your friend.
The POH is your friend.
The POH is your friend.
The POH is your friend.
The POH is your friend.
The POH is your friend.
The POH is your friend.
The POH is your friend.
Cheers, HH.
I just got my homework back and it looks like a C+, good to see I am keeping up the Hughes average!
Interestingly, the 'cool kids' who were the major protagonists on page one, all seem to have dropped out of school!
Anyway back to my punishment, perhaps some of the cool kids might like to join in...
The POH is your friend.
The POH is your friend.
The POH is your friend.
The POH is your friend.
The POH is your friend.
The POH is your friend.
The POH is your friend.
The POH is your friend.
The POH is your friend.
Cheers, HH.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Australia
Age: 44
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ITCZ
I'm not implying that there is insufficent testing, just stating that the aircraft in question have now been operated and proven commercially for over 40 years....... and with that comes alot of different experiences
The only thing pilots really need know are, to take due care, use commonsense and fly within your experiance level!!! Thats all it takes to run a safe operation... Its just a pitty you can't make commonsense a requirement for a pilots licence.
Everybody has pushed the limits further than they would have liked....
"Good judgment comes with experience; the only problem is experience comes from bad judgment"
I don't believe using flap to help get airborne is a bad idea, its got me out of more trouble than its ever gotten me into, and i was just sharing my experiences with somebody that asked.....
"Learn from others mistakes, you won't live long enough to make them all yourself"
Fly safe
The only thing pilots really need know are, to take due care, use commonsense and fly within your experiance level!!! Thats all it takes to run a safe operation... Its just a pitty you can't make commonsense a requirement for a pilots licence.
Everybody has pushed the limits further than they would have liked....
"Good judgment comes with experience; the only problem is experience comes from bad judgment"
I don't believe using flap to help get airborne is a bad idea, its got me out of more trouble than its ever gotten me into, and i was just sharing my experiences with somebody that asked.....
"Learn from others mistakes, you won't live long enough to make them all yourself"
Fly safe
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Endor
Age: 83
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only thing pilots really need know are, to take due care, use commonsense and fly within your experiance level!!! Thats all it takes to run a safe operation... Its just a pitty you can't make commonsense a requirement for a pilots licence.
Everybody has pushed the limits further than they would have liked.
Everybody has pushed the limits further than they would have liked.
I am a low time PPL, but I spent six years working in the Engineering Division of an Airline. I watched Boeing put together the first B767 as well, and I have a rough (very rough) idea of what goes into the Flight testing of any commercial aircraft.
I also have a healthy respect for the POH and the design of every element of an aircraft from its tires to the strobe on top for two reasons.
(1) Every aspect of every design of every component of every aircraft is the result of experience, often pilots have paid for that design experience with their lives.
Similarly, the details in the POH were not necessarily put there for no reason, and pilots again paid with their lives.
(2) "Your experience level", does not mean that the flight envelope for an aircraft is magically increased. If it stalled at 58 knots when it was certificated in 1972, then its still going to stall at 58 knots today, no matter how experienced you are, no matter what wizzbang avionics you have.
True, an experienced pilot is able to get closer to the edges of the envelope that I'm likely to get to, but the consequences of exceeding the limits are the same no matter how experienced you are.
If you feel this is untrue, then please don't take passengers with you and use your own aircraft. Two people died recently when a pilot decided that the POh was wrong and that his aircraft could perform aerobatics with an overload of about 170 kg.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmmm
The message is:
That there are known knowns,
There are things we know that we know,
There are known unknowns,
That is to say there are things that we now know, we don't know
But there are also unknown unknowns,
There are things we do not know we don't know
And each year we discover a few more
Of those unknown unknowns.
apologies to Donald, but wise words nonetheless..
I suspect for those who dont know or cant find the answer to my question its quite probable that neither do their CFI's/CP mebbe even some FOI's as we are several generations away from "the right way".
right, now some clues for those who are struggling and maybe they can work it out from first principles.
1. my use of the word "available".
2. the MAP gauge.
3. the correct indication is relatively "relative".
I have always learnt something I didn't know from PPRuNe and we used to have some really interesting and educational discussions so don't be coy.
So CC, FTDK, Tinstaafl, HH, Muffman, ITCZ and the usual suspects can quietly do some colouring in, while the rest of you get on with it.
Oh and wiz the principal wants to see ya after class please.
The message is:
That there are known knowns,
There are things we know that we know,
There are known unknowns,
That is to say there are things that we now know, we don't know
But there are also unknown unknowns,
There are things we do not know we don't know
And each year we discover a few more
Of those unknown unknowns.
apologies to Donald, but wise words nonetheless..
I suspect for those who dont know or cant find the answer to my question its quite probable that neither do their CFI's/CP mebbe even some FOI's as we are several generations away from "the right way".
right, now some clues for those who are struggling and maybe they can work it out from first principles.
1. my use of the word "available".
2. the MAP gauge.
3. the correct indication is relatively "relative".
I have always learnt something I didn't know from PPRuNe and we used to have some really interesting and educational discussions so don't be coy.
So CC, FTDK, Tinstaafl, HH, Muffman, ITCZ and the usual suspects can quietly do some colouring in, while the rest of you get on with it.
Oh and wiz the principal wants to see ya after class please.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As the thread starter, I asked a simple question about peoples experiences using 20 degrees of flap for take off in a 210. I specifically said I didn't want to hear "read the POH", because I'm not stupid, and I have already done this.
I thought I'd ask in this forum because as I understand it, there are a lot of 210s down your way, and therefore presumably a lot of 210 pilots.
Well, I've got the usual bag of PPruNe answers, ranging from the almost-illiterate (and probably almost-concious) Multime, to the blokes who want to tell stories of beating up their mates whilst 6-up and loaded to the gunnels, and finally the wide selection of "wise men" who want to tell me that I should ... read the POH !!
If you read my post again, you'll notice that I say "The POH for a 210 suggests that 20 degrees of flap should only be used for "soft" surfaces, and that for rough or short field operations, 10 degrees should be used." Notice that it doesn't say "Use of 20 degree flaps will make your testicles explode". This does kind of suggest that using 20 flap is approved by the POH ....
I'm from the UK, and just about to move to a strip which spends quite a lot of time fairly soft. I've never used 20 flaps for take off in a 210, and this is why I ask the question. To those who have answered in the spirit of the question, thanks. To the rest, who have filled 4 pages with attacks on each other, sermons, and by proving they can't read the blo*dy question, thanks also, it's been b*gger all use to me, but entertaining!
FF
I thought I'd ask in this forum because as I understand it, there are a lot of 210s down your way, and therefore presumably a lot of 210 pilots.
Well, I've got the usual bag of PPruNe answers, ranging from the almost-illiterate (and probably almost-concious) Multime, to the blokes who want to tell stories of beating up their mates whilst 6-up and loaded to the gunnels, and finally the wide selection of "wise men" who want to tell me that I should ... read the POH !!
If you read my post again, you'll notice that I say "The POH for a 210 suggests that 20 degrees of flap should only be used for "soft" surfaces, and that for rough or short field operations, 10 degrees should be used." Notice that it doesn't say "Use of 20 degree flaps will make your testicles explode". This does kind of suggest that using 20 flap is approved by the POH ....
I'm from the UK, and just about to move to a strip which spends quite a lot of time fairly soft. I've never used 20 flaps for take off in a 210, and this is why I ask the question. To those who have answered in the spirit of the question, thanks. To the rest, who have filled 4 pages with attacks on each other, sermons, and by proving they can't read the blo*dy question, thanks also, it's been b*gger all use to me, but entertaining!
FF