Why are multiple engines different?

Emily writes:

Obviously those of us who are multi-engine instructors but don't own
twins have never flown a twin because we don't own one. The logic made
perfect sense to me, what's your problem? g

No, but people who have flown multi-engine planes but cannot afford to
buy them might be envious of those who can.

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

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...


No, but people who have flown multi-engine planes but cannot afford to
buy them might be envious of those who can.


Just as people who pretend to fly, but cannot afford to fly might be envious
of those who can.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Gig 601XL Builder writes:

One reason is that MSFS doesn't use a physics model it uses tables to
simulate what will happen with a given set of control settings and
conditions. If the conditions at a particular time in the game are not in
the table it uses the nearest set.

With the advent of some really good physics models IN GAMES that are out
there it really surprises me that MSFS hasn't implimented one yet.

If the current model produces the correct results, there's no reason
to change. Which results are wrong?


Well it seems the one we are talking about earlier in this thread. Pilots
that fly the planes told you that real planes won't do something and you
stated that it would do it in the sim. That is an example of a problem
related to the lack of a physics model. Nobody wrote a table for that
particular condition so it has to default to the closest thing it can find.
The outcome is not one that happens in the real world.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Gig 601XL Builder writes:

Turbine engines cost a lot. I know a guy who bought a Bell 206 and
shortly
after burned up the engine during start-up. That little booboo cost him
in
the neighborhood of $80,000.

Sounds painful. How much does the entire helicopter cost, though?


Over half a million for a 25 year old one.
http://www.controller.com/listings/f...ELL&mdlgrp=206

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

Well it seems the one we are talking about earlier in this thread.

Nobody has tried it for real, so nobody knows.

Pilots that fly the planes told you that real planes won't do
something and you stated that it would do it in the sim.

They are speculating; I'm not. They haven't actually tried it in the
real aircraft, nor have they attempted it in simulation. I simulated
it and succeeded. So I have more experience with it than they do.

That is an example of a problem related to the lack of a physics
model. Nobody wrote a table for that particular condition so it
has to default to the closest thing it can find. The outcome is
not one that happens in the real world.

You haven't done it, either, so you don't actually know that.

Which part of the model doesn't work for this situation? What's
special about the situation that can't be simulated correctly?

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

On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 08:31:21 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote:

Turbine engines cost a lot. I know a guy who bought a Bell 206 and shortly
after burned up the engine during start-up. That little booboo cost him in
the neighborhood of $80,000.

One time some years ago when my Warrior was in the shop for an annual,
one of the A&Ps pointed to a nearby 206 and told me with a smile, "We
just did a hot section inspection on that helicopter that cost
$70,000." I thought that was significant at the time since it was 3
times what my Warrior was worth.

RK Henry

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

Over half a million for a 25 year old one.
http://www.controller.com/listings/f...ELL&mdlgrp=206

So it's like spending $15,000 for a car and then having to replace the
engine for $2400. That's not so bad, relatively speaking.

How much does it cost to replace a piston engine in a single-engine
aircraft?

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

Steve Foley writes:

Just as people who pretend to fly, but cannot afford to fly might be envious
of those who can.

Yes.

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

Recently, Emily posted:

Neil Gould wrote:
Recently, Mxsmanic posted:

cjcampbell writes:

Not at all. I am a multi-engine instructor.
But do you own a multi-engine aircraft?

And, the significance of that would be....???

Neil



Obviously those of us who are multi-engine instructors but don't own
twins have never flown a twin because we don't own one. The logic
made perfect sense to me, what's your problem? g

DOH!

Neil

Recently, Mxsmanic posted:

Neil Gould writes:

You don't understand much if you don't know what "...a commercial
pilot with a multi-engine rating..." means.

I understood that he had neither flown nor simulated this particular
scenario with this particular plane. Ratings don't matter.

It's pretty clear that you don't have the tiniest clue as to what it takes
to get a rating. Any rating. One thing is for sure, you won't get any kind
of a rating with MSFS.

This is totally irrelevant. Prior to an aircraft being certified --
as would be all commercially available light twins -- tests have been
performed under all conditions.

So where is the official documentation for a Baron taxiing on one
engine, and what exactly does it say?

Get the POH and read it.

Finally, MSFS is not an aviation simulator, it is a game.

It's a simulator. In fact, many games are actually respectable
simulators under the hood.

Irrelevant. One difference between an aviation simulator and MSFS is, for
one thing, you can actually get credit for time in a real aircraft
simulator. If you even one hour's experience with a real simulator, you
might understand the difference pretty clearly.

Neil