Glom's New Pay-Rate?

[sarongsong]

"... Pilots...if they ever get to fly one (http://avweb.com/newswire/10_48a/briefs/188616-1.html), would be paid $213 an hour, under a new contract that stipulates pay rates...even for aircraft that don't yet exist. First deliveries are expected in 2008..."

[Candy]

I should have become a pilot. #-o

[Glom]

Hee hee.

[ToSeek]

What's a "roundout"?

[Candy]

What's a "roundout"? Ok, I just woke up. Where do you see the term "roundout"? 8-[

[Glom]

Roundout is the raising of the nose as the aircraft glides over the threshold.

[ToSeek]

What's a "roundout"? Ok, I just woke up. Where do you see the term "roundout"? 8-[

Glom's sig.

[Candy]

What's a "roundout"? Ok, I just woke up. Where do you see the term "roundout"? 8-[

Glom's sig. #-o

[Doe, John]

Threshold of what? I ain't letting anybody fly a stinkin airplane over the threshold of my front door [-X

edited for spelling

[Glom]

Threshold of the runway.

[Nicolas]

Is "roundout" the same as the landing flare (prior to touchdown) or is it the raising of the nose when the main wheels already are on the ground (like the aerobraking of an F-16)?

[Glom]

On the approach, the aircraft is pointed towards the threshold in the descent. As you fly over the fence, you raise the nose to point to the end of the runway. Then as the aircraft sinks, you continue to raise the nose to keep the aircraft airborne until the mainplane stalls. That is the flare. Truth is, they are kind of the same action.

We have no need for aerobraking in the PA-28 with a speed at threshold of 65kts.

[Nicolas]

OK, so there's not a very narrowly defined difference between flare and roundout as it appears to me. Anyway I know now that you're talking about the nose raising maneuvre when landing. I never heard the term before, we always used "flare" for the complete maneuvre.

[Waarthog]

He's got to GET there first. :) I only get a quarter of that.

[Candy]

He's got to GET there first. :) I only get a quarter of that. Dumb question, is Flight ComputerTest Engineer anything to do with the Flight Simulator's (like the one in Denver)? 8-[

[Waarthog]

Simulators, yes, though to date nothing with quite the fidelity of the 3 axis sims you refer to. The best one I have used to date had was a Lockheed C-5 sim that had all the visual and control fidelity of the 3axis ones but did not move. Visually though, the field of vision was sufficient in size and resolution that your vision overrode your vestibular balance sense and told you you were moving when you were in fact still.

Our test benches range in capability to static ones with no aircraft simulation to integration benches that have lots of actual control and instrument hardware. The bench I spent the most time on simulated the cockpit of an MD-95 with 90% real hardware but the only visual cues came from the flight display instument panels.

[Glom]

The sim I used didn't create any feeling off flight, visual or vestibular. But then again it was a static IFR simulator.