rframe
pǝʇɹǝʌuı
This is exactly what confused me.
Commercial Single Engine Add On Tips?
- Thread starter Pachong
- Start date
This is exactly what confused me.
Autothrust Blue
Welcome aboard the Washington State Ferries
Since always, actually. A complex land plane has retractable landing gear, flaps and a controllable pitch prop. A complex seaplane has flaps and a controllable pitch prop. Exceptions to the latter item are, I believe, made for FADEC controlled power plants, which is all kinds of ironic.
FlyingScot
Spanish Proficient
Autothrust Blue said:
So you can't fly a 152 until you get your complex endorsement?
Mike H
Well-Known Member
Not if it also has a controlable prop and retractable gear, no. Then again, I don't think I've ever seen a 152RG
rframe
pǝʇɹǝʌuı
A 'complex' has all three: flaps, controllable prop, and landing gear. If dont have all three then it's not complex.
A Cessna 182 with controllable prop and flaps is not complex.
A Mooney Mite with retractable landing gear but fixed pitch prop is not complex.
rframe
pǝʇɹǝʌuı
Hmmm, maybe I should try to modify my 150, and put two O-200's on the wings while I'm at it, boy oh boy what a time builder. Shouldn't take much for a field approval on that mod...
FlyingScot
Spanish Proficient
I've actually flown a 150 with adjustable pitch prop. It was a 150/150 modified to tow banners.
It seems like an archaic definition for a complex aircraft. I doubt many people under 60 have flown an aircraft without flaps. I am not even sure how far back in designs you'd have to go to find one. According to the definition you could fly a retractable geared airplane with adjustable pitch props without a complex endorsement as long as it did not have flaps.
It seems like an archaic definition for a complex aircraft. I doubt many people under 60 have flown an aircraft without flaps. I am not even sure how far back in designs you'd have to go to find one. According to the definition you could fly a retractable geared airplane with adjustable pitch props without a complex endorsement as long as it did not have flaps.
rframe
pǝʇɹǝʌuı
I'm under 60 (almost by 1/2) and I can think of three pilot friends all around 30 we've all flown airplanes without flaps. Just off the top of my head the Cessna 120, J3, Champ, Luscombe, and Ercoupe dont have flaps... or did you mean just for those with retractable gear and CS prop? Only thing I can think of there would be some performance canards, as they often dont have flaps and can definitely be retractable and have CS props.
Autothrust Blue
Welcome aboard the Washington State Ferries
Symbolic logic fail.
tlewis95
I drive planes
I'm 20 and have flown just as many (if not more) airplanes that don't have flaps. That is a pretty invalid statement.
It is weird though that you can fly something with retracts, and a CS prop, and if it doesn't have flaps, you don't need a complex endorsement. But it is correct
The F-117A I flew had no flaps. In fact, it had no speed brakes or any other drag devices at all.
Attachments
rframe
pǝʇɹǝʌuı
Sweet.
Autothrust Blue
Welcome aboard the Washington State Ferries
Silly, isn't it?
nosehair
Well-Known Member
So,..'ja have ta slip 'er in...?
Mike H
Well-Known Member
Field approval, schmield approval- you'll have yourself an EXPERIMENTAL.
FlyingScot
Spanish Proficient
No and you don't even need a complex endorsement to fly it.
I now stand corrected on flapless flight.
Haha, no. One of the things about the lack of any drag devices was that there were no crutches to use during formation rejoins. Unlike other aircraft, you couldn't just swing on in with a ton of overtake speed, pop the speed brakes, and slide into position on another aircraft. In the 117, you really had to manage power well, keep note of your overtake speed, and play it just right in order to avoid an overshoot. The finesse it took to do that made one a far better formation pilot than before.
Landings-wise, we had a ref of 170 plus fuel remaining at 2kts/1000lbs, plus ordnance remaining, plus 1/2 the x-wind gust factor reported. Usually ended up with a 185 or so over the fence speed. Circling was Cat E, and the highest circling speed I saw was 212kts for returning back to the field via a TACAN approach in the WX following a malfunction. Our only drag device was the drag chute, although we could make no-chute landings, but those were dicey. You can't effectively aerobrake the jet, since the entire craft is flat on the underside and is essentially a lifting body. No-chute required getting the nose down promptly after touchdown and getting on the brakes, with a good chance of getting hot brakes. These landings were done when the x-wind exceeded 15 kts, since the chute became more of a hinderance than a help then, and there was greater possibility of fouling the chute around and within the stabs, a very costly mistake. Last ditch, there was the tailhook for catching the arresting gear, but that came with its own large set of problems.
[/offtopic]
R
Roger, Roger
Guest
Cool post, I always enjoy reading about your rides in the AF. I can't imagine doing a circle to land at 212 knots...that is insane.
I mean, it paid the bills. Until the AF began to really suck, and I left for part time.
Yeah, 212 was the computed circling speed......I did 215 in order to make it something manageable with the airspeed indicator, the HUD being not very useful for quick crosschecks while looking over my shoulder and trying not to lose the runway while that low and that far out from the field. Those speeds made you really cognizant of the 4.5 sm circling area. With the permanent 67 degree swept wing, getting slow in that thing wasn't something it enjoyed.
But on topic.......yes, it technically wasn't a "complex" airplane.
