private pilot oral exam

As usual, Lance sums everything up nicely. :)

Lance, will your Baron taxi on one engine? The Aztec will do it just fine, but you may have to make a 290 degree turn away from the good engine instead of a 90 degree turn into it.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
As usual, Lance sums everything up nicely. :)

Lance, will your Baron taxi on one engine? The Aztec will do it just fine, but you may have to make a 290 degree turn away from the good engine instead of a 90 degree turn into it.
Click to expand...

It's quite possible to taxi on one but it's tough to get started rolling without turning into the dead engine a little. You can even turn the other way once you're rolling. I had a starter go out once and was able to taxi from the self serve back to my hangar on the other side of the field once and it was pretty easy once I got the hang of it.
 
sanforce said:
lol, I would say he is an ECFI for experienced. Evil is much to harsh for this guy.
Click to expand...

If he makes a noise like BWAHAHAH when he pulls the throttle to simulate engine failure, he fits the ECFI mold that Ted was describing. Seriously though, a good CFI will push your limits just enough that you learn something from the experience rather than getting overwhelmed, and that's what Ted really meant.
 
gismo said:
It's quite possible to taxi on one but it's tough to get started rolling without turning into the dead engine a little. You can even turn the other way once you're rolling. I had a starter go out once and was able to taxi from the self serve back to my hangar on the other side of the field once and it was pretty easy once I got the hang of it.
Click to expand...

Sounds about the same as the Aztec. I can make slight turns into the good engine, but it's harder to make sharp turns unless I have enough momentum. I wish I could say I've only had a starter go out once, though... :frown3:
 
gismo said:
My ability to perform a stable and proper approach was weak enough that I learned a lot about how to salvage a bad approach and make a good landing. Sometime it helps to be less skillful.:D
Click to expand...
During my private training - my instructor told me he had never seen someone so good at salvaging a landing from a terribly flown pattern. I guess there was some good in that...

When I was *really* learning to fly, which was when I was a single-digit age, I didn't know what a pattern was. It was rare that my dad would actually use the airport runway, instead seemed to like to find all the random chunks of grass throughout the airport that you could land an airplane on. Perhaps that is why the airport manager hated us so....... There wasn't really a long established pattern. You flew to the airport and then you flew low. After that you did what it took to get the airplane to land. Getting used to the whole pattern/stabilized approach concept later in life was way different.

All that said, the earlier you control the airplane with the intent of landing, the easier the landing is, and likely safer. Especially IFR. I'm not devaluing a stabilized approach by any means.
 
Last edited:
Sorry to ressurect an old thread, but in my 172 POH it prohibits slips with flaps. My discussion with my CFI (who wanted to do it before I brought it up) later revealed that it could be done, but SOME 172s had a tendency toward elevator oscillations.

Are we saying here that the phenomenon doesn't exist?
 
Jaybird180 said:
Sorry to ressurect an old thread, but in my 172 POH it prohibits slips with flaps. My discussion with my CFI (who wanted to do it before I brought it up) later revealed that it could be done, but SOME 172s had a tendency toward elevator oscillations.

Are we saying here that the phenomenon doesn't exist?
Click to expand...

Lengthy discussions have been had on the Red board regarding this. The oscillation, if it occurs, apparently goes away when you release the slip. It's not some runaway condition that will tear the airplane apart within seconds.
 
dmccormack said:
One of the habits that's hard to extinguish in Commercial students is squaring off the pattern.:frown2:
Click to expand...

Interesting. My Primary instructor broke me of that, why wait for the Commercial? :)

Engine's dead... point at the airport, stupid. Get it down from there, but get over to the runway first, or have a good reason to go away from it.

I find it odd that you get enough Commercial students who haven't seen or done that -- or who just want to square up the pattern so bad that they'll do it when the engine's (simulated) dead -- to comment on it.

Wow. Just... wow.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Sorry to ressurect an old thread, but in my 172 POH it prohibits slips with flaps.
Click to expand...
I'll bet that if you read further, you'll find that's not what it says. I'll bet it merely "advises" against slips with flaps. As mentioned by others, this is because of that apparently very rare oscillation, which is easily controlled and stopped, as your instructor should know.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Sorry to ressurect an old thread, but in my 172 POH it prohibits slips with flaps.
Click to expand...
Yeah, since you resurrected this old wives tale with your assertion, would you please post the year, make, and model of your 172 with an exact quote of how the POH uses the word PROHIBITED?
 
Better yet buy a Cherokee. They slip just fine on full flaps. I did it yesterday.
 
steingar said:
Better yet buy a Cherokee. They slip just fine on full flaps.
Click to expand...
So do 172's. Been doing that for over 40 years (and teaching nearly as long) without incident.

That said, it's possible the poster is referring to an outdated "owner's manual" left over from the dark days when Cessna actually made this a prohibition. However, that was many decades ago and they changed it in later revisions for those model years, and AFAIK, no Cessna 172 "Pilot's Operating Handbook" ever contained that as a "prohibition" -- only "advice."
 
Ron Levy said:
So do 172's. Been doing that for over 40 years (and teaching nearly as long) without incident."
Click to expand...

Cherokees aren't placarded against it. How's that? Besides, Skyhawks suck. The wing is in the wrong place, and they're too slow.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Neither are Cessnas. The rest is your opinion.
Click to expand...

Hi ho, this got going again because a poster said there was a restriction for their bird. No such thing in any Cherokee.

You're right about the rest. But knowing my opinion on Skyhawk vs. Cherokee will be oh so important for posterity.
 
steingar said:
Hi ho, this got going again because a poster said there was a restriction for their bird. No such thing in any Cherokee.

You're right about the rest. But knowing my opinion on Skyhawk vs. Cherokee will be oh so important for posterity.
Click to expand...
OK, you win. Cherokees have better POHs and placards than Skyhawks.:cornut:
 
steingar said:
They're faster and better looking too.:ihih:
Click to expand...
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but with a lot of hours in both types, and with the possible exception of the C-177 Cardinal with its c/s prop, I don't think a Cessna is noticeably faster than a Cherokee of comparable vintage and the same engine power and gear (fixed/RG). Other than aesthetics, I've concluded that they're more or less interchangeable.
 
Ron Levy said:
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but with a lot of hours in both types, and with the possible exception of the C-177 Cardinal with its c/s prop, I don't think a Cessna is noticeably faster than a Cherokee of comparable vintage and the same engine power and gear (fixed/RG). Other than aesthetics, I've concluded that they're more or less interchangeable.
Click to expand...


Hmmm.... I agree. :rolleyes2:

Cut it out!! :D
 
Ron Levy said:
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but with a lot of hours in both types, and with the possible exception of the C-177 Cardinal with its c/s prop, I don't think a Cessna is noticeably faster than a Cherokee of comparable vintage and the same engine power and gear (fixed/RG). Other than aesthetics, I've concluded that they're more or less interchangeable.
Click to expand...

Cherokees are faster than comparable Skyhawks by a few knots, and they respond far better to drag-reduction modifications (no struts in the way).
 
steingar said:
It is when comparing them to their more pokey Skyhawk brethren.

This coming from a guy who flies a Chief?
Click to expand...


Exactly -- even though the pre-war Chief with the NACA wing is "Faster" than the 11AC (post-war), I don't get much benefit about claiming my Chief is "Faster" than another.

Who cares?

FWIW, the PA-28-180 I flew frequently averaged 115 knots @ 10 GPH.
The C172-180 averaged 110 knots at 8 GPH.
 
Ron Levy said:
Sorry -- my 40 years of flying both says not. You'll need a lot of actual flight test data to convince me otherwise.
Click to expand...


Come on -- look at this and then tell me it doesn't scream SPEED!!!

73ea7b8256a72541b101f5eaa630_grande.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top