A rarity! My killfile must have bitten the dust with last reformat. Alas.

Mxsmanic wrote:
The mistake made by pilots here is to think that these
sensations are 99% of flying, when in fact their importance varies with the
type of flying under consideration.

The counter-example being, of course, that even high-time regular
heavy-iron pilots find the loss of feeling in the control column in
modern fly-by-wire aircraft so disruptive and unnerving that the
engineers had to design systems to emulate them, leading someone more
prone to contemplation to perhaps consider kinesthetics more important
than not.

They see everything from the cockpit of a Cessna...

Whereas, one points out, you have not even seen that.


It's painfully obvious that many of the pilots
here are low-time, small-aircraft pilots. Everything they say reflects this
viewpoint.

Why say that? Provide some examples, lest you fall into your own trap of
incompleteness in objective.

Most of them only _know_ about the plane(s) they fly. They don't know about
other planes, so they don't care about them.

Perhaps, again, that other pilots in the group actually do know little
of the specific aircraft, and choose to refrain from making
pronouncements and edicts of procedure and performance, based on the
knowledge of their ignorance, instead of barging into threads where they
would only succeed in mucking things up with incorrect information and
speculation.

They think that knowing the fine details of control pressures in a Cessna is
vitally important, but when I point out that many large aircraft don't work
this way at all, they dismiss that as unimportant. But it's not unimportant
to an Airbus pilot.

See the first above.

Some people have resources, and others don't.

Some understand how to live within their means while enjoying their
passion, and others simply look in from the outside and stir the pot in
the hopes of becoming a part of the community.

Some do, some don't. Some stop half-way and then pretend about the rest.

And yet others pretend about it all.

Provide the correct explanation, then.

Provided by other posters, which that hypothetical contemplatieur would
note you have not chosen to respond to, and that is: positive stability
brought on by wing dihedral (which, one also notes, is a feature of BOTH
Boeing and Airbus wings: why make an active system to compensate for
what can be designed out with passive engineering?).

Simulation removes part
of the need for imagination, so simulation is much less pretending than
non-simulation.

Simulation allows for the so-called "suspension of disbelief", which
necessarily denotes that the participant recognizes and properly
attributes the qualities and failings of such "simulation" in the first
place.

---

Here we part with the third person (which, noted, you enjoy referring to
yourself with).

I have seen MANY knowledgeable, polite corrections and responses to
your assertions go un-heeded while you chose only to argue with those
who attacked you.

The fact that I do not reply to a post doesn't mean that I haven't read it or
understood it. It usually just means that I have no quarrel with it and no
further questions about it.

Netiquette demands at least a thank-you or acknowledgment of receipt.


Those who engage in personal attacks also tend to be those who give wrong
answers or incomplete answers or no answers, and so I press them for answers.
I press them for answers in order to compel them to
look at their opinions and decide whether they are really worth clinging to
when they cannot be substantiated. I consider this a public service.

Translation: I assault posters with incessant questions, even about
objective, immutable topics, in order to frustrate further conversation
or to provide some tangible ethical or moral response to which I can
cling and make incorrect, hurtful, baseless assertions. I consider
myself superior over all others, even those with a clearly higher
understand or better experience.

I've found that people have an
enormous tendency to believe what they want to believe, and it's an exercise
in futility to try to make them think more critically.

Found a mirror again?

Most of my information comes from other sources...

Of which you refuse to enumerate when issued questions or inquiry (which
inevitably leads to doubt of veracity).

Why? To spare the overinflated egos of a minority? Why would I say something
that is _not_ my understanding? How could anything I say (or anything anyone
else says) be anything _other_ than an understanding?

No, to spare the uninitiated of misplaced trust.

You fail to understand the difference between understanding and
knowledge (used in this vernacular). There is a fundamental dichotomy
between third-party repetition of information, and a statement of fact.
Even you must recognize that much of your writing comes off as though
you have real, first-party knowledge of a topic, when in truth you are
either re-stating another's or your own interpretation of subjective fact.

Thus, again casting doubt on your actual capability, which is not
assisted by your utter rigidity (or, colloquially, Ferrous Cranus).

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/war...rouscranus.htm

TheSmokingGnu