Hand flying

seagull said:
The Lear is very much more responsive, more like flying a fighter by comparison. In fact, I would venture that the transition from a fighter to a Lear would be easier than a heavy jet..
Click to expand...

I think that most people who have never flown a fighter think that.

From my perspective, the Lear (at least the 35 that I have flown) is a lot closer to bizjets in performance than a fighter in terms of control responsiveness, excess power, etc.

It's probably a hotrod if you've never flown anything that really is a hotrod.
 
Hacker15e said:
I think that most people who have never flown a fighter think that.

From my perspective, the Lear (at least the 35 that I have flown) is a lot closer to bizjets in performance than a fighter in terms of control responsiveness, excess power, etc.

It's probably a hotrod if you've never flown anything that really is a hotrod.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the buzzkill! lol How bout the Lear 28. Thats gotta be somewhat close maybe possibly kinda hopefully....
 
Hacker15e said:
I think that most people who have never flown a fighter think that.

From my perspective, the Lear (at least the 35 that I have flown) is a lot closer to bizjets in performance than a fighter in terms of control responsiveness, excess power, etc.

It's probably a hotrod if you've never flown anything that really is a hotrod.
Click to expand...
This is what I love about this site.
"hmm, if only we had their perspective of someone who has flown both fighters and Lears..."

"oh wait, we do!"
 
Yes, I've heard that the 20 series are more rocketships than the 35 that I've flown, so even my perspective may be off the mark a bit.
 
Roger Roger said:
This is what I love about this site.
"hmm, if only we had their perspective of someone who has flown both fighters and Lears..."

"oh wait, we do!"
Click to expand...

Well, to be fair, it's not Lears (plural)....it's just Lear. Don't want to come off as some kind of authority, but just my perspective based on limited experience.

Dan Raushcher let me fly a Lear 45 (I think) sim at FlightSafety last year, and that seemed to perform similarly, too.
 
Hacker15e said:
I think that most people who have never flown a fighter think that.

From my perspective, the Lear (at least the 35 that I have flown) is a lot closer to bizjets in performance than a fighter in terms of control responsiveness, excess power, etc.

It's probably a hotrod if you've never flown anything that really is a hotrod.
Click to expand...

I am guessing this post is tongue in cheek, otherwise the statement that the Lear (a bizjet) flies more like other bizjets, is a bit inane. Anyway, I was comparing the Lear to a heavy jet, and the difference between a Lear and a heavy jet is a lot greater than between a Lear and most fighters. I was not talking about power, by the way, but rather control responsiveness, and, of course, legacy flight control fighters, as FBW would require a different comparison based on the control laws.
 
By the way, without getting into flight control derivatives (which would not be appropriate for a public forum), there is plenty of literature that supports what I wrote. A quick google search yielded the following (which, I admit, I only briefly scanned just now, have not read through): AvWeek.
 
seagull said:
I was comparing the Lear to a heavy jet, and the difference between a Lear and a heavy jet is a lot greater than between a Lear and most fighters. I was not talking about power, by the way, but rather control responsiveness, and, of course, legacy flight control fighters, as FBW would require a different comparison based on the control laws.
Click to expand...

In your previous post you say, "yes, I've flown both," apparently referring to a heavy and a Lear and your ability to compare the performances of the two based on that experience.

Have you flown a fighter?

Not trying to dick measure, just wondering.

In my experience, 69% of people willing to make comparisons that include the term, "like a fighter" have never actually been in one and are going off what they think it's like rather than actual knowledge of it.
 
Reading these posts, I've come to FINALLY realize why PILOT PAY / FLIGHT CREW PAY have decreased.

It's because of all these automations! MANAGEMENT (Airlines), have scrapped pay because the computer handles a lot of the workload.

It's like Automation on everything but emergencies. No wonder pay has greatly decreased and may continue to decrease as automation increases (I pray not tho)

DAMN U AUTOMATION!
 
Hacker15e said:
In your previous post you say, "yes, I've flown both," apparently referring to a heavy and a Lear and your ability to compare the performances of the two based on that experience.

Have you flown a fighter?

Not trying to dick measure, just wondering.

In my experience, 69% of people willing to make comparisons that include the term, "like a fighter" have never actually been in one and are going off what they think it's like rather than actual knowledge of it.
Click to expand...

Only the sim. That said, I know a bit about control law theory and have read engineering flight test data, so I know a bit more than most (it might surprise some that, yes, we can actually get a good handle on how an airplane will fly based on just engineering analysis!). I have flown the Lear and transports. The person who I flew the Lear with was an AF TPS IP, and he was the one that made the comparison I made when we were in a discussion about relative handling characteristics.

I would add that a Cessna 150 also handles more like the Lear than a Lear handles like a DC-8, by the way (the Lear has much faster roll rates, though). I am talking strictly handling qualities, by the way.

In what way would the comparison I made be invalid?
 
When I flew the PC-12 more I'd hand fly up to top of climb, then AP on, and then AP off at TOD, usually did all approches by hand since it has a good flight director. On the 1900 its all hand flying since our 1900's have no AP anyways.
 
Sisson2011 said:
and I hand flew it raw data the entire flight.
Click to expand...
Not knocking you Sisson, just an observation from other situations.

I'm hearing "Raw Data Flying" more frequently and all I can think is, "When did *Flying* start needing adjectives?" A pilot tells me he hand flew it; cool, good story bill. A pilot tells me he actually could do did it without the gizmos and I think, 'help us and save us.'
 
Day 1 = Lots of hand flying.
Day 2 = A good amount of hand flying.
Day 3 = Some hand flying.
Day 4 and beyond = Wake me when we get there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top