3 ms·

A Cessna has very different aerodynamic issues than a jetliner. Multi-engine also has its own issues (such as if one engine dies, the airplane tries to turn aro

A Cessna has very different aerodynamic issues than a jetliner. Multi-engine also has its own issues (such as if one engine dies, the airplane tries to turn around it). Setting a Cessna down on the runway is fairly strait forward. A jetliner, on the other hand, is quite complex to land.

VBprogrammer 5mo ago
I don't know if you can claim one is more straightforward. Sure a Cessna flies slower and has relatively simple aerodynamics. However, you could also be operating it out of a 400m sloping grass strip with a mountain off one end. An A320 might be flying 3 times faster but is generally flying between relatively flat, straight runaways several miles long with approaches typically flown on a stable instrument approach from several nautical miles away. It's control laws mean flying straight or maintaining a particular bank is as simple as letting go of the control stick. If anything the stick and rudder skills in normal circumstances are much less involved. Systems management, obviously the autopilot, but also environmental, hydraulic, navigation an the operational concerns are obviously vastly more complex.
- defrost 5mo ago
  > you could also be operating it out of a 400m sloping grass strip with a mountain off one end. Why? Not as a regular thing I hope, that's about 90m short of "tight". If you're intent on proselytizing PNG at least get a PAC STOL ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAC_P-750_XSTOL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAC_P-750_XSTOL )
  - VBprogrammer 5mo ago
    Not if the Cessna is a King Katmai 182...that would have room to spare.
    - defrost 5mo ago
      Interesting, I didn't know that Cessna had a STOL conversion kit, nor that people I know locally (second hand) had done a few - they still look under performant compared to the PAC STOL family and have to wonder if they can handle short strips at high altitudes in thin air fully loaded. PAC STOL's were driven by demands for work horse grunt power at NZ / PNG altitudes. (eg: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_MO5Wfomks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_MO5Wfomks )
raverbashing 5mo ago
I see where you're going here but no A Cessna an a big jet fly by the exact same principles and they stop flying due to the exact same principles as well Sure the procedures and parameters and automations are different (as well as things like wing positioning, engine positioning, swept wings, number of engines, sure) But you raise the nose of both of them enough they will both stall. If you lose speed they will both stall. They will behave similarly (or maybe weirdly) enough in curves. And I think this is what was forgotten here. Having a fancy cockpit does not make it less than a dual-engine swept-wing fixed-wing aircraft. The principles are the same
- WalterBright 5mo ago
  Flying at near supersonic speeds at high altitude with a swept wing airplane is quite different from low and slow with a straight wing and thick air. Jetliners have a rather small envelope at altitude where the airplane will fly, things like overspeeding it will cause it to go out of control. A fair amount of effort goes into designing the cockpit so it feels to the pilot like a low and slow aircraft, but it is not the reality. For example, jetliners are unstable and require a yaw damper.
  - raverbashing 5mo ago
    Yes yes and I know all of that We can argue semantics but the reason AF stalled is the same reason a Cessna would stall (too high of an AoA) And fair enough the comparison with the Cessna might be bad, but compare it with a 737-200 or even an A300 and the comparison will be much closer even though the 737 doesn't have the fancy cockpit > things like overspeeding it will cause it to go out of control. Well that would be the case of the Cessna as well, if it has enough power
    - WalterBright 5mo ago
      > Well that would be the case of the Cessna as well, if it has enough power Jetliners do have the power to overspeed, and the efficient place to be in the flight envelope is quite near it. A Cessna cannot. There's a rather small envelope a jetliner operates in at altitude. A Cessna is far more forgiving, though you can get into deep doo-doo with that if you try. You are correct that stall recovery is the same for both airplanes. Although I know a lot about airplanes as an engineer, I am not a pilot and have not had pilot training. My dad would attack artillery (Korean War) by diving straight down on it. I'm pretty sure his jet was fitted with dive brakes.

VBprogrammer 5mo ago

I don't know if you can claim one is more straightforward. Sure a Cessna flies slower and has relatively simple aerodynamics. However, you could also be operating it out of a 400m sloping grass strip with a mountain off one end. An A320 might be flying 3 times faster but is generally flying between relatively flat, straight runaways several miles long with approaches typically flown on a stable instrument approach from several nautical miles away. It's control laws mean flying straight or maintaining a particular bank is as simple as letting go of the control stick. If anything the stick and rudder skills in normal circumstances are much less involved. Systems management, obviously the autopilot, but also environmental, hydraulic, navigation an the operational concerns are obviously vastly more complex.

defrost 5mo ago
> you could also be operating it out of a 400m sloping grass strip with a mountain off one end. Why? Not as a regular thing I hope, that's about 90m short of "tight". If you're intent on proselytizing PNG at least get a PAC STOL ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAC_P-750_XSTOL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAC_P-750_XSTOL )
- VBprogrammer 5mo ago
  Not if the Cessna is a King Katmai 182...that would have room to spare.
  - defrost 5mo ago
    Interesting, I didn't know that Cessna had a STOL conversion kit, nor that people I know locally (second hand) had done a few - they still look under performant compared to the PAC STOL family and have to wonder if they can handle short strips at high altitudes in thin air fully loaded. PAC STOL's were driven by demands for work horse grunt power at NZ / PNG altitudes. (eg: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_MO5Wfomks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_MO5Wfomks )

raverbashing 5mo ago

I see where you're going here but no A Cessna an a big jet fly by the exact same principles and they stop flying due to the exact same principles as well Sure the procedures and parameters and automations are different (as well as things like wing positioning, engine positioning, swept wings, number of engines, sure) But you raise the nose of both of them enough they will both stall. If you lose speed they will both stall. They will behave similarly (or maybe weirdly) enough in curves. And I think this is what was forgotten here. Having a fancy cockpit does not make it less than a dual-engine swept-wing fixed-wing aircraft. The principles are the same

WalterBright 5mo ago
Flying at near supersonic speeds at high altitude with a swept wing airplane is quite different from low and slow with a straight wing and thick air. Jetliners have a rather small envelope at altitude where the airplane will fly, things like overspeeding it will cause it to go out of control. A fair amount of effort goes into designing the cockpit so it feels to the pilot like a low and slow aircraft, but it is not the reality. For example, jetliners are unstable and require a yaw damper.
- raverbashing 5mo ago
  Yes yes and I know all of that We can argue semantics but the reason AF stalled is the same reason a Cessna would stall (too high of an AoA) And fair enough the comparison with the Cessna might be bad, but compare it with a 737-200 or even an A300 and the comparison will be much closer even though the 737 doesn't have the fancy cockpit > things like overspeeding it will cause it to go out of control. Well that would be the case of the Cessna as well, if it has enough power
  - WalterBright 5mo ago
    > Well that would be the case of the Cessna as well, if it has enough power Jetliners do have the power to overspeed, and the efficient place to be in the flight envelope is quite near it. A Cessna cannot. There's a rather small envelope a jetliner operates in at altitude. A Cessna is far more forgiving, though you can get into deep doo-doo with that if you try. You are correct that stall recovery is the same for both airplanes. Although I know a lot about airplanes as an engineer, I am not a pilot and have not had pilot training. My dad would attack artillery (Korean War) by diving straight down on it. I'm pretty sure his jet was fitted with dive brakes.