Coordinated turns without rudder, and autopilots

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.130...
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in
:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
. 130...
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in
:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
. 130...
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in
:


"Jim Stewart" wrote in message
.. .
Nomen Nescio wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

From: Mxsmanic

And the Baron I fly wasn't created by Microsoft.

Well, there's your answer, dip****.
Ask the person who created your "Baron" why the autopilot does
not accurately simulate reality. Get a clue, ****head.
Real plane always behave "real".
Real autopilots always behave "real".
Software always performs the way someone wrote it. Now, if
you'll excuse me, I have to go fly my intergalactic battle
cruiser to the 4th star on Orion's belt.

Damn. I did my 25 hour inspection and oil change
last night. I actually found having my hands in
*real* motor oil out of my *real* plane more enjoyable
than reading about Mx's simulated Baron and simulated AP.

Yes, but I'll bet HIS wife didn't yell at him to go wash up before
getting anywhere NEAR the furniture :-)))
Dudley Henriques

You think he has a wife?

Hmm.


Bertie

Actually, I've not given him that much thought.

Wise man


However, you are missing out on a great deal of entertainment.

I didn't like MASH, the series, the first time I saw it.


Bertie



I must admit I find the threads entertaining at times. I just don't
want to engage with him. It's a lose lose situation really. I have a
firm opinion on where he's coming from, and have had that from the
first time he engaged me. Since I can teach him nothing, and there is
most certainly nothing I can learn from him, engagement seems a
classic lesson in futility. Be my guest however. I do get a chuckle
here and there from watching it.

Well, there you have it. Couldn't agree more.

Who knows. This guy could easily be a
new "Ralphie" :-))

Well, he'll take a bit of work to get to that standard, but I'm nothing
if not patient.

Bertie

I've noticed :-))))

Dudley Henriques

On May 30, 8:25 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
Bob Crawford writes:
How do you substantiate your initial claim that "[Real life GA]
autopilots make coordinated turns even when they cannot control the
rudder"?

By watching the ball in the turn indicator. It moves far less in an AP turn
without rudder than it moves when I make a turn without rudder.

But you're watching the ball in a simulator. What's that
got to do with ANY claim about a real life GA plane?
Watch the ball in a real life plane, (or pay attention to
someone who has actually watched the ball in a
real life plane) and you'll see that autopilots that
can't control the rudder turn in the same way that
a hand-flying pilot turns when he keeps his foot
away from the rudder pedals. Generally speaking,
both will be slightly uncoordinated.

The degree of uncoordination varies from one
plane to the next, but at least in cruise, it's
normally not enough to matter too much. In
those planes where the AP can't control the
rudder, the decision was made that the
lack of coordination is not severe enough
to justify the extra expense and weight
penalty of giving the AP control over the
rudder.

Everyone's telling you the same thing -- real life
planes don't behave the way you're describing the
simulator to behave. Furthermore, the fact that
you've asked the question that started this thread
indicates you find some cognative dissonance
in the simulator's behavior on this point. It
simply doesn't make sense that an autopilot
with no rudder control could maintain coordination
in a situation where a human would require
rudder control to maintain coordination.

You have two choices: Either the simulator's
right, all the real pilots and real planes are
wrong, and there is some unexplainable
magic that allows the autopilot to maintain
coordination in a situation where rudder input
is required but not available, or else there's
no magic, real planes behave the way
real planes are observed to behave, and
the simulator is wrong on this particular
point.

I suspect you've made your choice as
to which alternative you want to believe.

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in
:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.130...
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in
:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
. 130...
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in
:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
. 130...
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in
:


"Jim Stewart" wrote in message
.. .
Nomen Nescio wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

From: Mxsmanic

And the Baron I fly wasn't created by Microsoft.

Well, there's your answer, dip****.
Ask the person who created your "Baron" why the autopilot does
not accurately simulate reality. Get a clue, ****head.
Real plane always behave "real".
Real autopilots always behave "real".
Software always performs the way someone wrote it. Now, if
you'll excuse me, I have to go fly my intergalactic battle
cruiser to the 4th star on Orion's belt.

Damn. I did my 25 hour inspection and oil change
last night. I actually found having my hands in
*real* motor oil out of my *real* plane more enjoyable
than reading about Mx's simulated Baron and simulated AP.

Yes, but I'll bet HIS wife didn't yell at him to go wash up
before
getting anywhere NEAR the furniture :-)))
Dudley Henriques

You think he has a wife?

Hmm.


Bertie

Actually, I've not given him that much thought.

Wise man


However, you are missing out on a great deal of entertainment.

I didn't like MASH, the series, the first time I saw it.


Bertie



I must admit I find the threads entertaining at times. I just don't
want to engage with him. It's a lose lose situation really. I have a
firm opinion on where he's coming from, and have had that from the
first time he engaged me. Since I can teach him nothing, and there
is
most certainly nothing I can learn from him, engagement seems a
classic lesson in futility. Be my guest however. I do get a chuckle
here and there from watching it.

Well, there you have it. Couldn't agree more.

Who knows. This guy could easily be a
new "Ralphie" :-))

Well, he'll take a bit of work to get to that standard, but I'm
nothing
if not patient.

Bertie

I've noticed :-))))

Dudley Henriques

Thenkew.


Bertie

"Ash Wyllie" wrote in :

Mxsmanic opined

Ash Wyllie writes:

2) Newer light aircraft are designed so that at cruise speed and small
aileron
deflections rudder input is not needed.

But the AP aileron deflections do not appear to be small, as it rolls the
aircraft rapidly and smoothly into a coordinated turn. And this is on an
aircraft designed sixty years ago.

force variess with the velocity squared. Think about it.

Good grief, the only thing he thinks about is where his next bag of
cheetohs is coming from.


bertie

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dave Doe wrote in
. nz:

In article ,
says...
Nomen Nescio writes:

Answer.....or shut the **** up.

No.

= I am a troll.


Please don't call him a troll I find it deeply offensive.


Ok - how about a narcissistic, arrogant, conceited, prick??

Erik writes:

Yeah, took me one painful half hour.

If you are disqualified, it'll be a lot more painful.

Don't need to own

Renting is expensive over the long term.

Nope, it's expensive, but worth it.

If you don't have the money, it doesn't matter.

But you're an American living in France

So? I still don't like to travel. I never travel anywhere.

Only if the pilot does something stupid or can't handle exceptions
and doesn't keep the plane up to FAA par.

If it's a rental plane, you don't know where it has been, which is one reason
why owning is better.

You can control when you fly, weird, isn't it?

You cannot control the climate of the place where you live. You cannot fly
VFR every day if you live in Seattle. You cannot fly in the Great Plains
during thunderstorms and tornados.

No, you don't.

Yes, you do. You may be affected as low as 5000 feet. And there's nothing
you can do about it, short of taking oxygen.

If I breathe the air in a public place, I might get a cold.

Yes.

I trust those tiny tin cans MUCH more than I trust those
big damn ATP planes.

Why? Statistically, the tin cans are far less safe.

Don't you know that when you step out of your door in the morning,
you can be hit by one of those french drivers?

I don't walk on the street.

Maybe you can catch a cold.

I regularly do.

You might slip on a stone.

Yes.

But I know the statistics, and the risks. I worry about a tin can flown by
anyone other than myself, and belonging to anyone other than me.

You lie. It's not that you don't want to fly, you're down
right frightened of it.

I like flying. But I don't like taking risks. If I were to fly a small
plane, I'd have to be the pilot and the owner. That puts the crucial
variables into ranges that I can assess.

Bob Crawford writes:

Table driven models are only "perfect" at the (often very few) points
in the table (and even there depends upon the accuracy of the
measurements). Elsewhere they too are only approximations, the
accuracy of which depends upon how well the real world contour matches
the interpolation method chosen.

They can be made much more accurate than theoretical models, and they are
provably accurate with respect to the real aircraft at demonstrable points,
which is useful for certification.

Snowbird writes:

What a brilliant deduction.

Thank you.

I suppose next you will then postulate that the
simulator has a more accurate flight dynamics model than the real airplane.

The real airplane is not a model, so this statement has no meaning.

Then tell me why it's self-evident that a table-driven flight dynamics model
would always be better than a real-time differential equation-driven.

Not always, but usually, especially cost-wise. The idea of a simulator is to
simulate a real aircraft, not real flight. It's more important that the
behavior of the sim match the real aircraft being simulated than it is for the
sim to approximate real flight in all regimes.

Full-motion ATP sims handle spins and other unusual attitudes poorly, but
since they are not used to simulate those unusual attitudes, it doesn't
matter, especially since they simulate normal flight with extraordinary
accuracy.

writes:

But you're watching the ball in a simulator. What's that
got to do with ANY claim about a real life GA plane?

Real-life planes have the same thing.

Watch the ball in a real life plane, (or pay attention to
someone who has actually watched the ball in a
real life plane) and you'll see that autopilots that
can't control the rudder turn in the same way that
a hand-flying pilot turns when he keeps his foot
away from the rudder pedals. Generally speaking,
both will be slightly uncoordinated.

I've already had confirmation that the movement of the ball in the sim matches
the ball in the real thing.

Erik writes:

What is wrong? Why won't you fly, mx?

No time, no money, and only a slim probability that I'd pass a medical. I'm
also not interested in flying in France. And I'd want to be the owner of my
aircraft, and I'd want it to be the same one I fly in simulation, that is, a
Baron 58.