lnuss

I wasn't trying to advocate an overhead approach for you (I would discourage it at this time), only trying to point out that the extra long final approach legs are not necessary and just using that approach as an example. When you're in the pattern at an uncontrolled field, you basically just make a larger version of the pattern you use with a Cessna, but you don't have to extend the downwind to 5 miles, perhaps a couple of miles to start with and practice until you can shrink that a bit. I know nothing about the "Xtreme Prototypes' Learjet 25" nor do I have a Learjet on my system. As I say above, just do a larger version of the Cessna pattern with a wider downwind, putting your gear down early for extra drag to aid in speed control and to get rid of your warning horn. Your problem isn't aircraft specific, unless they have a lousy set of flight characteristics for that particular version -- it's going to much the same for any bizjet or for a trainer such as the T-37 or the L-29, with mild variations depending on the specific aircraft.

There are many other places that will allow that, too, traffic permitting, including the former Jefferson County, now Rocky Mountain Metropolitan near Denver.

None of those videos you showed discussed the unmoving spot, though in the first one** you can see that, when they get to the runway (without mentioning the spot) that the VASI lights are approximately unmoving, and everything else is either moving up or down, and you seemed a little vague on your answer. Note that he comes down final a little to the right of the centerline until he finally lines up in the flare. This "sight picture" is extremely important for each aircraft -usually a little different for each type, as well as a change in the sight picture as you change airspeed or flaps. But regardless, once you've identified the unmoving spot and mastered using it, you'll reach the point where you just automatically recognize whether you're high or low and how to correct for it to reach the intended spot, rarely needing to consciously think about it- but that's only after enough practice using that spot. So just in case you're still not quite sure about seeing that spot, I'll reiterate what I said above; And as for the overhead approach that I mentioned, if you've ever been to an airshow with the Thunderbirds or Blue Angels or other demonstration teams, you've seen the jets come overhead, then one by one make a right or left break (always away from the audience) to a downwind, the a (often) circular base leg, then to final approach. That's what I mean by the longer finals being unneeded when in the pattern. BTW, this link lets you see a diagram and explanation of the overhead approach: https://www.cfinotebook.net/notebook/aircraft-operations/approaches/overhead-approach-maneuver It's far from a military only maneuver, though, and many people use it when appropriate, usually in getting a formation to land close together. ==================================================== ** I love the comment by the narrator in that first video that we teach people to land by teaching them not to land. Hold it 6" off the ground and let the aircraft decide when to touch is really a great way to look at it, for the actual flare and touchdown, but that doesn't help you judge how to get the aircraft to that point.

1000 feet AGL is too low for 5 miles out under most conditions, and that's much further than should be needed for the final approach leg if you are VFR trying to fly the traffic pattern. That aural alert may well be the landing gear warning, which is easily silenced by slowing to gear speed and dropping the gear, since more power is needed withe the extra drag from gear and flaps. Did you ever watch a fighter plane doing an overhead approach? How long was their final approach leg? They've long since mastered the "unmoving" spot in the windshield, among other things. OK, but did you learn to see your approach path? Did you learn to gauge where the spot is on the runway that, during descent, doesn't move up or down in the windshield with a steady, stabilized approach at a constant airspeed and rate of descent? That is the key to judging your approach path under various conditions, and can allow you to not have to do things by rote, but rather to use judgement of changing conditions to still allow you to touch down where and when you want. If you've not mastered that (and you didn't say), then go back to the Cessna and learn it and learn small, gentle corrections. There is a reason that we flight instructors teach some of these very basic things (and this IS basic) and ensure that the students master them.

Or maybe it's too much? That's a loooonngg final, and 1,000 AGL is awfully low for that far out. With a wide downwind and a turn on base around a mile or so beyond the numbers (probably a bit further at first), if you're at a reasonable approach speed, then you need to learn to see your approach path while on final -- this can certainly be practiced by being maybe 1500 to 2000 ft AGL at 4 or 5 miles, then looking at the numbers of the runway to discover the one spot on the runway that stays at the same spot on the windshield during descent, that is, the spot that doesn't move up or move down in the windshield. Learning to see this is very important. It will take practice, and more practice. However I think it would be best if you learn that technique in a light aircraft (Cessna or such) at much slower speeds until you can do it almost without thinking, then gradually move up in speed and complexity of aircraft. You can even slew out a mile or so from the runway at 800-1000 ft AGL and hold your 70 or 80 kts (in a Cessna) all the way down final while learning to judge that spot- any other spot will be moving up or down in the windshield, so at first pick out the one that is stationary on a spot in the windshield (that's the spot you'd hit if you do nothing) and adjust your descent (power a little up or a little down) until the spot remaining still is where you want to land -- actually where you want to start your flare -- and practice will let you adjust it until you get what you want. But first you have to learn to identify that spot. Of course you also must be very gentle on the controls, making gentle corrections -- correct in too much of a hurry, or corrections that are too large will leave you behind the aircraft, and frustrate you badly. If this doesn't make much sense to you yet, get in a Cessna at 1,000 AGL a mile out and at 70-80 kts (depending on the Cessna) with half flaps, and just set up a 300-400 foot per minute descent, keeping airspeed and rate of descent steady (don't chase the rate of climb gauge, though -- it lags) and look carefully at the runway to identify the spot that doesn't move up or down in the windshield. Hope this helps...

It's been a long time since I messed with that part of it, but I think I use FSUIPC to properly map the buttons.

I can't recall a single car I've ever had that can go 500-600 miles on a single tank of gas. Where does your "average" come from? Generally I've seen 300-400 miles with some reserve before fillup. The cars with better mileage also had smaller fuel tanks.

Beautifully done, as always. I've always told my students that it's simple things that use rules of thumb, as shown here, that can so often simplify your tasks, and can often also act as a reality check, that is, an approximation that you quickly do in your head gives you an estimation that you can use to be sure that any other source/method is at least in the right ball park. A quick double check like this can save problems from mistakes, whether yours or that of someone else. This is true in many areas of life, not just aviation, even just checking on your change received when you pay cash for something. So thanks for again helping folks to simplify their tasks...

One example would be the steam powered flight by Samuel Langley, who gave up after a couple of crashes, shortly before the Wright's legendary flight. Full, 3-axis control was the single most important thing the Wrights brought to the table, though far from the only thing.

Fairly simple: The departure point is not at the numbers of the runway, rather it is, in the case of Boulder, far enough along the runway that you can land (spoilers are GREAT!) and stop there, generally not having to brake hard, yet leaving plenty of runway for departure from that point. In the case of Coronado, that area I showed is a 900 foot section of dirt just before the numbers of 21 (just past the end of 03), so the sailplane is 200 ft or so from the 21 numbers (tow rope length) and the tow plane taxis out onto the numbers, then the rope is hooked up, and they can depart with the full length of the runway ahead (21 also sloped downhill slightly). There are plenty of other variations, depending on the airport layout and traffic patterns and terrain around. Of course there are also some places where they do, in fact, have to move the sailplane to the departure point -- lots of variations. You might enjoy this YouTube video of our glider operation in ABQ in the mid-1970s. A compilation from a TV station's (ch 13) 16mm film of Pegasus glider operations from Coronado Airport (4AC -- now defunct) in Albuquerque, NM in the mid-1970s, made using Pinnacle Studio with music from SmartSound. The tow plane is a 1953 Cessna 180 and the sailplane is a Schweizer 2-33 training sailplane. I'm the guy in the red hat at the start of the video, and buddy Mike (RIP) is in the white hat.

In real life, it's quite common to land and stop at approximately the point of departure, in order to facilitate the next flight, especially for commercial operations. We did that at Pegasus Aerial Sports in ABQ (at 4AC, Coronado airport, now defunct) and it's also true at Boulder airport in Boulder, Colorado. Many club/private owners do that too. So that pushing it to parking is only once a series of flights is ended, especially true on days with poor lift. It's been so long since I tried gliders in FSX (or P3D V2) that I don't recall the limitations in the program, though. The photos below were all taken in the mid-70s at the approach end of runway 21 (in the dirt underrun) at Coronado Airport (4AC) on the north edge of Albuquerque, near Tramway Road, for those familiar with the area. The two screenshots from P3D V2 are taken from the Carenado Baron, but are showing the northwest and southeast sides of the underrun area of rwy 21, respectively (scenery by me).

I got this a few hours ago, too- first time I've seen it. But that "Invision" thing has caused me delays many, many times, sometimes over a minute (I posted about it under the New Forum Software section:

Sounds to me, based on the many reports I've read and TV segments I've seen, that Boeing had an initial problem which, on the specific aircraft in question, could have been caught by not letting the aircraft fly again after the first pressurization light warning until the problem was resolved. Apparently (my opinion) that section was initially loose enough to let some pressure out while still holding, but worked its way loose on subsequent flights (note that this is semi-informed speculation, not established fact). So it seems to be Boeing's problem initially and Alaska Airline's sloppy regard for proper maintenance combined that let the problem happen. A third party, Spirit AeroSystems, may also be involved (that's not yet established) who has " numerous production-quality lapses on 737 and 787 subassemblies—its two largest programs." Since it was a rather new aircraft (delivered last October), it's not certain that maintenance (other than the warning light lapse) was involved, especially since I gathered that an inspection would have been mandatory anyway after 4,000 cycles, although that was only implied, rather than explicitly stated. So there are enough complexities in this incident that the thorough evaluation that the NTSB will do should give the proper answer, rather than blaming everyone in sight before the truth is known. We don't know nearly all of the details and it's not a five minute job...

Yes, that's in addition to the existing facility which is near the old Stapleton airport (now a housing community) and it has been there for decades. I was fortunate a number of years ago (perhaps 2005?) to get a couple of hours on the 757/767 simulator at the old facility, which is an amazing experience. A neighbor was, at the time, an instructor there. Curiously in the middle of the session it locked up, reminiscent of the Microsoft sim at the time, with not only the software, but even the physical controls (yoke/pedals) locked up, immovable. It took a while for the techs to restore operation.

Wow! Thanks for bringing this back, Nels. A nice article by Dan on how the "mobile" market was for flight sims a few years back. It's interesting to revisit what it was like back then.

Nels is right- while the sim is very helpful for many procedures, such as VOR navigation, instrument approaches, flying by instruments, and in so many other ways, the takeoff, landing, and maneuvering in relation to the ground won't be helped much by using the sim. The "feel of the aircraft" that Nels mentions is way beyond just control pressures: sounds, the exact look out the window with the reference points on the aircraft nose and wings, the feel in the seat of your pants, pulling g's, and much more is needed in the real world. I might mention, too, that for all my students I've always required that they actually fly the traffic pattern, including takeoffs and landings to a full stop with the instrument panel covered by my coat. In preparation for that I'd have them do slow flight, minimum controllable airspeed flight (MCA) and airspeed changes, as well as turns, climbs and glides, raising and lowering flaps while maintaining altitude and airspeed, all with the panel covered. This forces them to look out the window and learn to judge performance by attitude, sound and feel (seat of the pants, control pressures and more). It surprises them when they discover that they can, with the panel covered, get within two or three knots of the target airspeed, and mostly maintain close to the desired altitude, just by the sound of the right power setting, the pitch attitude, the control sloppiness and more, none of which can be taught/duplicated in a desktop, non-motion sim. I could go on about differences, but hopefully this will get the point across. All of that said, the sim can be useful for your later training (but don't practice your mistakes- learn it right), and it can be a fun thing to do, even exploring areas where you've never been, but not very much help for pre-solo work, as you've been discovering. The sim is way too different from real aircraft in that area. Luck...

I don't think FSUIPC works in Microsoft Flight (a completely different program than FS2004, FSX, etc.), and this might be better served in the FS2004 forum, but FSUIPC changes aircraft behavior only so long as it is installed and active. It intercepts the software in flightsim and changes what is sent to the aircraft, and when using FSUIPC you have the choice of changing things for a single aircraft or for all aircraft, for any given change, thus you can control what you want done within FSUIPC. Or if you uninstall it, then all changes made with it are gone. If you don't have the paid version, then what you can affect is strongly reduces, but the same thing is true, that removing it removes all changes too, because it's no longer able to intercept the commands to the sim.

Welcome back...

I've not seen the Steam version, but in FSX there are camera views in the cameras.cfg located in C:\Users\usrname\Application Data\Microsoft\FSX and in the aircraft.cfg file for each aircraft. I don't recall ever finding a camera setting in panel.cfg.

In the early days of COVID, when they did flyovers of various medical sites (hospitals, etc.) for reasons of morale, I was able to video some of it, including a brief shot of the Thunderbirds. I've compiled that into a 4 minute movie here:

Nice shot for a phone, Nels. You are evidently in a different area than I am (144th & Huron), probably closer to Buckley, but we don't seem them nearly as often. Still, when I'm outside and hear that fighter jet sound (as Nels describes), I'll see two, four or sometimes eight F-16s come by over a few seconds. I'm always wishing I had more than a few seconds to prepare, but by the time I could get a camera they'd be long gone, and it's not regular enough to keep a camera with me every time I'm out. I'd love to get some video...

It took 1:32 this time...

It would indeed. But the low volume, sometimes almost hand built aircraft, certification costs, etc. make that difficult. I recall Cessna had that in mind when they offered the C-162 Skycatcher, but that didn't pan out. Light sport aircraft are, of course, closer to being affordable, but even they are mostly well north of 100K. Ultralights can be affordable but it's not quite the same thing unless you just want to hop around the patch. I recall around 1970, when I was a fresh Private pilot, a Bonanza was around $44,000, and I thought that as my pay increased it might become affordable, but I'd not yet understood inflation, and it just kept getting further and further away, pushing a Megabuck today. But an old Champ or T-Craft comes close to affordable, and for a few years I was in a partnership with a Super Cub (eight of us), and it was affordable like that. But new aircraft? Ha...

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2023/november/17/switchblade-roadable-aircraft-makes-first-flight

It did it again, just now, for 1:32