I would expect the intellegent disinterested reader to realise the
authority to be respected comparing sim and actual aviation are those
who have used both. Some of those have posted in the group.

If one claims to be speak with authority about both without having
actual experience that same intellegent disinterested observer might
consider that poster to be not so intellegent (clearly not the case of
MX), or not living in the real world (that's an open question) or a
spammer.








On Mar 14, 10:23 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
Ron Natalie writes:
Bull****. I don't have to preflight the simulator, or pull it from the
hangar, or preheat it, or get it started, or call for the fuel truck
or any of the hundred things that REAL pilots have to deal with with
flying REAL airplanes that you'll never experience in your pathetic
little fantasy world.

You can simulate any of those, if you wish. Most simmers stick to the actual
flying part, however, with perhaps some checklists prior to taxiing out.
Since a simulated aircraft only has problems if you want it to, you can set it
to be 100% reliable and eliminate the need for many preflight checks.

Obviously, these are some of the key advantages of simulation. You can never
skip the checks in real life.

The some of the time will be longer as
you waste time initially being behind the complex aircraft which will
entail more instruction time than if you started simple and worked up.

That's not the way learning works. If you have the capacity to absorb complex
concepts, you can study everything up front. Essentially learning will be the
product of time and effort. You can learn a given amount using moderate
effort and long time, or using considerable effort and shorter time. The
result is the same. This applies to learning to fly just as it applies to
learning anything else.

It shouldn't. If you bothered to study anything, the above isn't valid
for even Cessnas. Cessna recommends operating in LEFT or RIGHT at
high altitudes. I'm not going to go into the reasons because your
game doesn't vapor lock.

I don't fly Cessnas, so it doesn't matter, although of course I'd be
interested in hearing the reasons. It seems like unnecessary complication.

My aircraft is a low
wing and has a both position on the fuel selector and tip tank
crossfeeds for a long time. But it adds weight, complexity and things
that may go wrong just as easily as forgetting to switch tanks.

I'd prefer a system that allows me to draw fuel symmetrically from tanks on
both sides of the aircraft. That way imbalance is one less thing that I'd
have to worry about.

Again, your pathatic idealized world doesn't correspond to reality. Do
you think the fuel flow on each engine is identical? Do you think the
line guy filled both tanks to the same level?

It should be possible to closely approximate both. If there are significant
differences in fuel consumption, an inspection may be warranted. If the line
guy doesn't fill the tanks to the same level, make him come back and do so.

You've never flown a baron. Stop lying. Real pilots who haven't caught
on to your bull**** and lies might be dangerously confused.

If they haven't "caught on," then perhaps nothing of what I'm saying is wrong.

1. The tanks can't be sealed. As fuel goes out, air must go in (either
that or you'll have to have fuel tanks like a playtex baby bottle with
a collapsing bladder.

I believe that has already been done. Also, you can fill the empty space with
dry nitrogen, which helps (this may be expensive on a small aircraft).

2. Condensation rarely is the problem. The real problem is poorly
sealing fuel caps.

You just said they couldn't be sealed, so how is this a problem?

Again, stop lying. You've never flown a Baron. You don't know how
they behave aerdodynamically.

Yes, I do. At least better than someone who has never flown one in real life
or in simulation.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.