Flaps on take-off and landing

Skylune writes:

The sim is better than real life. I've done both. In the little planes,
when u need to urinate, you do it in your pants or into a container. As
for the other bodily functions, you just gotta hold it and hope that there
isn't alot of traffic ahead of you before its your turn to land. (And the
pilots wonder why more women don't want to deal with this).

The Air Force (in the U.S.) did a study on this and did find a way for
female fighter pilots to deal with it. It's not pretty for either
sex.

However, your points are well taken. These are some of the advantages
of simulation. While it is true that no simulation can perfectly
duplicate real life, it's possible to come very close--and at the same
time you can dispense with the parts of real life that don't
contribute to your enjoyment, such as flying around with a bursting
bladder.

In the little planes, you are oftentimes dealing with 1960s technology.
The little planes are either too hot or too cold. They can't get you
where you want to go unless you have an IFR license and a capable plane.
In the little planes, you have to worry about other marginally trained
pilots running into you (either on the ground, mid-air, or in the traffic
pattern).

Why wouldn't collisions be a worry for larger planes? I remember some
PSA pilots who regretted losing track of a small plane (and the small
plane had experienced pilots, too).

In the little planes, you will waste at least $100K between the training,
equipment, insurance, gas, etc.

This is one of the key reasons why I do not pursuit flight in real
life.

And, best of all, in the sim world you can fly into and out of Megis Field
to your heart's content!

I don't like Meigs Field. I find that I tend to fly around areas that
I've already seen from the air in real life, although sometimes I pick
places I've never been to before.

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

Skylune,

You forgot: In the little planes - you fly!

In the little planes, you will waste at least $100K between the training,
equipment, insurance, gas, etc.

Care to back up those numbers (which are completely bogus)?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...

..

The sim is better than real life. I've done both. In the little planes,
when u need to urinate, you do it in your pants or into a container. As
for the other bodily functions, you just gotta hold it and hope that there
isn't alot of traffic ahead of you before its your turn to land. (And the
pilots wonder why more women don't want to deal with this).

I go before I take off. No brainer.

In the little planes, you are oftentimes dealing with 1960s technology.
The little planes are either too hot or too cold. They can't get you
where you want to go unless you have an IFR license and a capable plane.
In the little planes, you have to worry about other marginally trained
pilots running into you (either on the ground, mid-air, or in the traffic
pattern).

Most places I want to go, I wouldn't go to if the weather was bad anyway.
(like Block Island)

In the little planes, you will waste at least $100K between the training,
equipment, insurance, gas, etc. (Better off buying a really nice BMW or
Audi or Porsche, which will get you where you want in less time, and where
you can pull over at a rest stop when you want).

My plane cost $17,500 for 4 seats. Storage, insurance and maintenance are
comparable to the expenses of a small boat and I can use it all year round.

And, best of all, in the sim world you can fly into and out of Megis Field
to your heart's content!

It's (was) Meigs-not Megis.

mike

Skylune wrote:

In the little planes, you will waste at least $100K between the training,
equipment, insurance, gas, etc.

Could you be more specific? If it costs, say, $10,000 to get PPL and
IFR rated, what do you spend the other $90,000 on?

Marc

Steve Foley writes:

What 'inherent bounce' is that?

If you hit the ground at just the right speed, you bounce. Hit it any
harder, and you crash. Hit it more softly, and you have a nice
landing.

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

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Steve Foley writes:

What 'inherent bounce' is that?

If you hit the ground at just the right speed, you bounce. Hit it any
harder, and you crash. Hit it more softly, and you have a nice
landing.

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

Definitions of inherent on the Web:

a.. built-in: existing as an essential constituent or characteristic; "the
Ptolemaic system with its built-in concept of periodicity"; "a
constitutional inability to tell the truth"
b.. implicit in(p): in the nature of something though not readily
apparent; "shortcomings inherent in our approach"; "an underlying meaning"


A bounce in not inherent in a landing. It's a mistake.

Mxsmanic,

If you hit the ground at just the right speed, you bounce. Hit it any
harder, and you crash. Hit it more softly, and you have a nice
landing.


Only in simulation...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Larry Dighera wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
The idea is to try to approach real life. Additionally, many things
are simulated. If adjusting flaps has a bad effect in real life,
there's a good chance that it has a bad effect in simulation as well.

Are you aware that you are discussing this with one of the programmers
who wrote MS Flight Simulator?

I cross-checked the names of the posters to this thread with the published
MS FS credits I could find and I still don't know who you're talking about
Larry. Unless Bruce Artwick is posting using a non-obvious handle? :-)

Okay, I guess I might as well come clean...

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
Are you aware that you are discussing this with one of the programmers
who wrote MS Flight Simulator?

I cross-checked the names of the posters to this thread with the published
MS FS credits I could find and I still don't know who you're talking about
Larry. Unless Bruce Artwick is posting using a non-obvious handle? :-)

Which "published MS FS credits"?

Did you look here (for example)?
http://www.mobygames.com/game/window...r-2000/credits

Now, that said, one of the primary reasons I no longer work for Microsoft is
because of the fiasco surrounding the release of MSFS 2000 and the
remarkably low quality of that product. Frankly, I'm a bit embarassed to be
associated with it at all (though I admit to being happy that my final
contribution before leaving was to fix a particularly egregious performance
bug in the coastline rendering code, so at least after the Christmas patch
that year it didn't quite suck as much as it did when it was released to
manufacturing...and no, the bug I fixed wasn't my fault).

My stint with the MSFS team was a last-ditch effort to recapture the joy I
had had in programming, sucked dry from one bad corporate bureaucratic
experience after another. Suffice to say, it didn't work out (well,
actually I guess it did...I'm much happier now that I code for the pure joy
of it, I just don't work for Microsoft anymore ).

Anyway, that's a long way of saying I don't generally like to bring up my
involvement with MSFS. IMHO, the product released makes me look bad by
association.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote:
Which "published MS FS credits"?

I have version 6 and the 2004 version, so I tried to check their credits.

Did you look here (for example)?
http://www.mobygames.com/game/window...mulator-2000/c
redits

Nope - didn't see that. Looks like I overlooked the version(s) you worked
on.

My stint with the MSFS team was a last-ditch effort to recapture the
joy I had had in programming, sucked dry from one bad corporate
bureaucratic experience after another.

That's appears to be a common problem. :-(