Quick question…. Does the real piper float so much? I was doing some touch and goes with a 12 knot cross-wind…. Yes practice, and thought that the warrior just floated down the runway…. I was about 66 knots, so many a little to fast?
65 is a good speed for final approach, but you should be cutting the throttle as you pass the runway threshold so that when you round out and flare your speed should be lower than 65.
Your approach and touchdown speed are weight-dependent. At 2000lbs in a Warrior, you should be “over the fence” at 60kts and touchdown closer to 40, for example, and at 2200lbs 63/42, etc.
Also, since the Warrior is low-wing, this means it will enter ground effect earlier (and ultimately closer) than a high-wing, causing a major reduction in induced drag that makes them tend to float quite a bit, especially if you’re carrying 5-10 kts extra airspeed. Remember the rule of thumb that an extra 10% of landing speed increases your landing distance by about 20% (it’s funny, this was a big part of the discussion on last Friday’s stream!).
Speed/energy management is key. Pay attention to the published speeds for your weight and keep practicing!
2 Likes
Thanks for the help, have to slow it down on approach…. Got so used to flying the bonanza recently…. 
1 Like
In the real plane, if I don’t cut the throttle before I get to the threshold, I’ll float a long way down the runway.
4 Likes
This. Idle once you have the runway made.
2 Likes
The plane is great since the update. I tried a few ILS approaches and the markers (outer, middle, inner marker) don’t work. Anyone else with this problem?
Be sure they actually exist. You can check the approach chart.
The vast majority (like 90% or more) of marker beacons in the US have been removed in the last two decades. You’ll still see some IM on CAT III approaches at some airports, though, and there are a handful of OM still out there.
1 Like
Why are they (and NDBs and other older tech) being removed? Is it maintenance costs and/or because they may cause pilots confusion? Are VORs being removed as well?
1 Like
Cost.
Interesting thought, and I don’t mean to be mean, but, I giggled a little when I read “because they may cause pilots confusion?”
Sure, lots of pilots got confused in training, but that never stopped the FAA.
And really, what’s more satisfying than hitting the ils on an approach, and hearing those markers go off right on time? Ah, for days gone by.
I was flying by Manchester (KMHT) and the marker went off, and my girlfriend asked what it was… “Oh, the old way we used to navigate”
I used to teach kids about flying with FS2004 and FSX… and that was one of the coolest ways I could teach them about navigation. Take off from KASH rwy 14, turn left on the radial for MHT VOR, turn final for and do a touch and go on 35 at KMHT, pick up and fly to CHERN NDB, then turn final for KASH rwy 14 and land. Flight takes about 10 minutes and it covers all the bases. Sadly CHERN is no more.
Sure, I can have them follow a GPS track now, but that’s no fun. Way more fun to see the needles move and get them to line up. Very satisfying.
2 Likes
Not taken as mean at all. I wasn’t really going for either comedy or judgment. But I do wonder if pilots learn about and/use older technology these days.
I am not a pilot IRL, but in-sim, I pride myself on having learned to fly via NDBs and VORs and wish there were more in the sim. The US is mostly devoid of NDBs, except parts of Alaska, but there are opportunities in other parts of the world.
2 Likes
Not just Alaska, they still exist in remote parts of the US that don’t yet have GPS approaches at a lot of airports, so you’ll find them in Maine and northern NH and Vermont, places like that.
I miss them. They were fun to use.
2 Likes
DME and moreso GPS/RNAV have rendered them obsolete. And I imagine that it saves quite a bit of money as the ground transmitters don’t need to be maintained.
Lots of VORs are being removed in the US, I believe the plan is 34% by 2030. At this point it’s mostly east of the Missouri River, but there have been a handful in the west as well. They will keep enough so that you’re always within 100 of a conventional radio-nav approach. Look up the Minimum Operational Network (MON).
As far as NDBs, there are still quite a few left in the CONUS. You know, I think I’ll shoot a few approaches on Friday’s stream now that I’ve wrapped up the VFR flight planning sim lessons.
5 Likes
Ok they wasn’t any marker on the approach 
. Another question. Using the WT GNS430/530 combination an the AP does not engage. Tried Heading, NAV. It doesn’t even react like there is no connection. Could this be a issue in combination with the GNS from WT?
Cost is why they are going.
Back in the day flying clubs would even hold NAV challenge days with some minor prize where every one flew a VFR course using map and beacons and had to answer some random questions about what they saw along the way to prove they had been on course. Quite fun at the time.
Kind of pointless these days with GPS.
3 Likes
I’m sorry, I don’t quite understand what you’re saying, but, yes, if you have the gps issues, it would be an issue if you have both the PMS50 530 and the Marketplace WT530 installed on your system.
The FSW developer wasn’t clear if they are using the default (WT)530, or they still point to the old deprecated but still in the code (Asobo) AS530, and therefore the Marketplace WT530 needs to be installed to access the (new) default (WT)530, which they said the C414 was now designed to use. The PMS50 530 replaces the AS530, as does the Marketplace WT530 addon, so, if both are installed, issues will ensue.
I wish developers were more clear about which GNS530 they use. All the developer said above was, paraphrasing “We think the WT530 works with our plane the best”. That’s not a lot of help, really.
It’s important to understand because a new Nav Database structure was created at the same time as / for the new navigational systems, so, pointing to the AS530, which uses the old less functional nav database system, and expecting the user to have the marketplace 530 installed to link to the new one can result in issues for the Autopilot and other things if people don’t have the Marketplace 530 link to the new default 530 installed. The problem planes that use the G3X will now have issues because it’s based on the old system and can’t communicate with the new systems if the plane also has a 430 or 530 installed, or one of the 750’s for that matter.
Oh, what a tangled web we weave.
1 Like
I don’t know if I understand everything correctly. So the WT GNS is stock now for the Warrior? What exactly do I have to do? There is a little download on the marketplace at about 25kb regarding the WT GNS. Do I have to download that? The overlay seems already to be the WT one. I deleted the PMS from the community folder
As long as you’ve deleted the PMS530, then, yes, I’d install the “little” Marketplace WT530 (the one with the picture). It’s basically a link that redirects GPS’s that still use the AS530, and redirect them to use the WT530. Then you’re all set no matter which version of the unit the plane uses.
That’s a good thing to look for. I’m not home right now and won’t be for a couple of days, but, you can look in the panel.cfg and panel.xml (if you’re on PC). If you see a reference to AS530 or AS430, then it likely needs the MPWT530. I don’t know what the name of the new default 530 unit is in the code.