be aware most airports do not have GPS approaches, in fact most small airports don't have any at all

This is a potential misinformation. Practically all public airports in the US with at least say a 2400 ft long paved runway do have GPS-based instrument approaches (or some other non-precision approach).

This is a potential misinformation. Practically all public airports in the US with at least say a 2400 ft long paved runway do have GPS-based instrument approaches (or some other non-precision approach).

Not to start an argument, but you might want to check this link:http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headqu...aches/index.cfm

what does flap setting have to do with brake strength?

Flaps among other things generate excess lift, by raising them you remove that lift, which puts more weight on the wheels, making the brakes more effective.

Not to start an argument, but you might want to check this link:

Thanks for this link, it actually supports what I said, with 4700+ LNAV (WAAS) procedures alone and about 5000+ public airports in the US it is clear that "most" airports do have instrument approaches.

The Mooney and the Cessna are 2 different animals. I would really suggest you stick with the 172 until you get the basics down, and using a yoke/rudder pedals will make things a whole lot easier. The 172 you only have to use the throttle, in the Mooney as you have found out, you now have an extra contol, the RPM's. Manifold pressure is the same as the 172 throttle, the RPM's control the pitch of the prop. The 172 is a basic plane used for training, the Mooney is a high performance single that requires a bit more training to fly.For landing the Mooney you need the RPM's (prop) full 'forward', and the manifold pressure at idle. To help slow down, start reducing speed early, and drop the gear and flaps. Once under 100kts, push the RPM's full forward, then use MP to control speed. Have the plane configured for landing at least 3 miles from the runway, then just monitor speed and descent and adjust as needed.

Thanks PIC! I had a better read of the pilot's handbook and the normal procedures for takeoff and landing etc and realise now that, yes.....very different animals! I really like this plane though so I want to stick with it and learn how to set it up for proper takeoff, cruising and landing. If it gets too much for me, I'll go back to the 172.I'm going shopping today, so I will look at getting the proper gear to work with!Al, thanks for those links and the info...once I get something that will give me proper rudder control then I'll give it a try!Mark

On the subject of sideslips, check out this totally amazing one by WW1 flying ace, Ernst Udet, he does a loop with the engine off, and then sideslips it in for a really neat touchdown:

Al

Thanks for this link, it actually supports what I said, with 4700+ LNAV (WAAS) procedures alone and about 5000+ public airports in the US it is clear that "most" airports do have instrument approaches.

You are talking about the US, I was referring to FS.

You are talking about the US, I was referring to FS.

In FS situation should be very similar. If you get Reality-XP's Garmin 430/530 unit as an addon you pretty much have access to all the GPS-based approaches in the US and in Europe.

Flaps among other things generate excess lift, by raising them you remove that lift, which puts more weight on the wheels, making the brakes more effective.

I disagree with your flap assertion. Flaps alter the Lift/Drag ratio upward when at small angles (up to about 30

In FS situation should be very similar. If you get Reality-XP's Garmin 430/530 unit as an addon you pretty much have access to all the GPS-based approaches in the US and in Europe.

I was just going to post this thanks!!I forgot all about default GPS lol

A practical example is that in a Cessna Citation II full flap is not allowed to be used whilst airborne only after landing for braking purposes. In RW flying I have never retracted the flaps on a light aircraft before reaching taxi speed.

I am afraid it is all dependent on the aircraft.For example in aircraft with spoilers no flaps raising may be needed because spoilers effectively kill all the lift. But in my lowly Piper Archer II the POH clearly states that for short field landing it is best to raise flaps as soon as the nose gear touches the ground for best wheel braking effectiveness. Cessna's 172 POH gives similar advice. This is probably what test pilots for these two models of aircraft did to arrive at the short field landing data.

Just a further caveat to keeping flaps down upon landing. It is pretty much true that flaps will increase drag and assist in slowing an aircraft down, but there is an increased risk of both foreign object damage and ground strike damage to the flaps when they are all hung out. The risk of FOD is further increased on aircraft with thrust reverse, which tends to blow debris around that might possibly jam a flap track or some such - fortunately, this is not something we have to worry about in FS.Theoretically, at least for aircraft which have lift spoilers, when the spoilers deploy upon landing, they should dump enough lift to ensure there is plenty of weight on the undercarriage for the wheels to spin up, which is why the P2 on an airliner will generally check that the spoilers have automatically deployed upon landing, and if not, will manually get them up. So long as the landing roll out distance is assured and runway conditions are okay, keeping the flaps down ought to then be unnecessary; it might even be prudent to get them retracted to avoid any potential for FOD. But since many GA aircraft don't have spoilers, this isn't always an option and the flap braking technique may be a wise choice on some runways.On a wet runway, anything which can aerodynamically slow the aircraft down is useful when the brakes might not be so effective owing to aquaplaning. It is interesting to note here though, that the best technique can differ for any particular aircraft, for example, holding the nose up to aerodynamically brake the aircraft can be useful for some aircraft, since it will create more drag, furthermore, the nose wheel tire is very often inflated to a much lower pressure than the main wheel tires, which means it will be more susceptible to aquaplaning than the main wheels are. For some aircraft however, planting the nose wheel down early is recommended, this usually being the case for airliners. For GA aircraft, which regularly land on grass, things might be not so simple. Anyone who has ever jammed the brakes on when rolling out on a wet grass runway in real life will know that they become next to useless, and you will simply keep on going! Again, not something you have to worry about in FS unless you happen to use TSR Autobrake, which makes landing a lot more realistic in FS than it might otherwise be.You might be interested to know that many years ago, trainee RAF pilots used to actually get fined a few Shillings - which was subtracted from their wages - if they got to taxi speed and the flaps were still down!Al